Utopia Talk / Politics / More Social Media Nazi Punching

murder Member	Thu Aug 09 21:29:42 Except this time it's their own social network ... and it's their host threatening to toss them out on their asses. ============================================== Microsoft threatens to boot the far-right's favorite social network off its cloud over posts that threatened Jews with 'vengeance' (MSFT) Rob Price Business Insider August 9, 2018 * Microsoft is threatening to kick Gab, a social network popular with the racist far-right, off its cloud hosting service Azure. * The company has taken issue with virulently anti-Semitic posts that call for "vengeance" against Jews and the vandalism of Holocaust memorial museums. * Microsoft has given Gab a 48-hour deadline to comply. Microsoft has threatened to kick a social network popular with the racist far-right off its cloud hosting service over anti-Semitic content that advocated genocide and torture of Jews. Gab, which has been described as "the alt-right's very own Twitter," is hosted on Microsoft's Azure service. But on Thursday, the Seattle-based company said it was considering booting Gab off its network, which would take the social network offline. In a statement provided to Business Insider, a Microsoft spokesperson said the company had "received a complaint about specific posts on Gab.ai that advocate 'ritual death by torture' and the 'complete annihilation' of all Jews," and that it had determined the content incited violence, "is not protected by the First Amendment, and violates Microsoft Azure's acceptable use policy." Multiple users on Gab responded to the news of Microsoft's threat with virulently anti-Semitic messages of their own. The user behind the two posts in question — which advocate the vandalism of Holocaust memorial museums and discuss in explicit detail a plan for torturing Jews — says he will delete the posts, but as of publication, they remain live on Gab. Microsoft has given Gab 48 hours to take them down. The furor comes at a time of intense debate over the tech companies' responsibility for the content that appears on their platforms. Facebook and YouTube have recently bowed to public pressure and booted notorious conspiracy theorist Alex Jones from their social networks. Many Gab users are outraged about Microsoft's actions, painting themselves as martyrs for the cause of free speech — but one of the posts in question is arguably a direct incitement to violence that calls for "vengeance" for the "debt the jew owes the world." Gab co-founder Andrew Torba issued a statement on the incident from his profile on the site. "To the lying, sophist, mainstream media political activists who call themselves 'journalists' reaching out: we are not doing ANY interviews with Fake News," the statement reads in part. It goes on to say that Gab will only speak with Scott Budman, a reporter with NBC Bay Area News. We've reached out to Gab for further comment and will update if we hear back. http://fin...s-boot-far-apos-211120504.html
murder Member	Thu Aug 09 21:30:23 Here's the full statement from Microsoft: Microsoft received a complaint about specific posts on Gab.ai that advocate ‘ritual death by torture’ and the ‘complete eradication’ of all Jews. After an initial review, we have concluded that this content incites violence, is not protected by the First Amendment, and violates Microsoft Azure’s acceptable use policy. Microsoft notified Gab.ai of this substantial concern and advised that it remove this content or respond to Microsoft within 48 hours, or potentially risk suspension of its service on Azure. We believe we have an important responsibility to ensure that our services are not abused by people and groups seeking to incite violence against others. Our policies rightly prohibit this type of content, and we expect Gab.ai to abide by these policies if it wishes to use our service. Gab.ai is of course free to choose otherwise and work with another cloud service provider or host this content itself. If it wishes to make that choice, we will provide it with a reasonable amount of time, in this instance longer than 48 hours, to transition its content elsewhere before its access to Azure is terminated. But we will stand by our policy and insist that Gab.ai remove what is unlawful and hateful content.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Thu Aug 09 21:36:07 "We believe we have an important responsibility to ensure that our services are not abused by people and groups..." TRANSLATION - We believe in censorship.
hood Member	Thu Aug 09 21:39:15 If the posts incite violence, there is no censorship at all here, there's a clear reaction to illegal content. Incitement of violence is speech even the government can interfere with.
murder Member	Thu Aug 09 21:41:15 "TRANSLATION - We believe in censorship." You used to be a mod here. ;o)
Hot Rod Revved Up	Thu Aug 09 22:51:03 Microsoft believes they have the responsibility, so the remove the forum. Are you sure that is not censorship?
Y2A Member	Thu Aug 09 22:59:20 Nothing wrong with censoring people who invoke violence no matter how angry their fellow travelers on Fox get.
Dukhat Member	Thu Aug 09 23:36:18 But some journalist trolled some gamers gate retards by saying "#cancelwhitepeople." So you see, there are some very fine people on both sides. /s
Forwyn Member	Thu Aug 09 23:59:49 That's like pointing to one Reddit comment and whining to take the entire site down. Boohoo. Report it to the authorities. Gab has taken a stance against censorship, whether you think it qualifies or not.
hood Member	Fri Aug 10 00:03:29 Again, there's a difference between "a stand against censorship" and "allowing illegal content." If the messages in question are truly inciting violence, they should absolutely be deleted and reported to the authorities.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Fri Aug 10 00:24:06 Y2A - Nothing wrong with censoring people who invoke violence no matter how angry their fellow travelers on Fox get. Then why are we still operating?
chuck Member	Fri Aug 10 00:25:50 Good. Let the separatists build their own infrastructure. Give them their wish to opt out of our terrible society by also opting out of our technology. Good fucking riddance. Let them have Idaho and be done with them. Don't sell them IPhones, don't sell them a single fucking hamburger. Let them use their genetic superiority to figure things out for themselves. What else is it good for? I'm sure with the brainiacs who follow that banner they will have it all figured out in no time.
Paramount Member	Fri Aug 10 00:40:21 This happens only because someone said something about jews. You can say a whole lot of things about white people or muslims on youtube and twitter, and no one will shut down their platforms.
Dukhat Member	Fri Aug 10 00:58:16 I'm pretty sure if you called for the complete annihilation of all white people, you'd get banned. Maybe not muslims. But isn't that what you guys want anyways? The ability to sling mud while being immune to it yourself?
kargen Member	Fri Aug 10 02:49:17 "Then why are we still operating?" Because we knew going in we were all pretty much ass holes. Remember the politics forum was created long long ago because the powers that be decided what we posted wasn't appropriate in the other forums.
murder Member	Fri Aug 10 03:24:29 "Gab has taken a stance against censorship, whether you think it qualifies or not." They've taken a stance on Microsoft's cloud service.
murder Member	Fri Aug 10 03:25:31 "Then why are we still operating?" Because Turtle Crawler allows it, and his web host likely has no idea what gets said here.
Memory Lane Member	Fri Aug 10 04:13:37 "TRANSLATION - We believe in censorship." I remember when hot rod used to "censor" posters. Especially one that he did not agree with because his threads and post were decimated by facts. I also remember that hot rod believes if you boycott a business. That it violates the business's first amendment rights. I drink and remember things.
The Third Reich Member	Fri Aug 10 04:32:59 "Gab has taken a stance against censorship," Amen brother!
Jack Cafferty Member	Fri Aug 10 04:52:59 "That's like pointing to one Reddit comment and whining to take the entire site down. " Or it's like point out that the content you are providing is in clear violation of out terms of service and we are giving you an opportunity to correct yourselves but if you continue then we will remove it. But hey, we know you're pretty good at interpreting policies and laws and stuff...
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 10 09:23:02 Same thing. Again, the comments are a minuscule fraction of traffic on the site. Two fucking comments, from one user. He voluntarily took them down, and that saves Gab the headache of balancing violating their entire branding vs. finding new hosting. http://the...er-neo-nazis-hate-speech-posts
Delude Member	Fri Aug 10 09:53:13 Not like Gab hasn't had to move their platform to other hosts multiple times before for their content and change their model.... But "muh poor racists being censored."
obaminated Member	Fri Aug 10 09:57:23 Eh, this is a first amendment issue, Hood. Consider Ice T's song about killing cops. That could be interpreted as inciting violence. Should Ice T be blacklisted and banned? I think not, despite me not agreeing with his stance. Hell, this goes back to me supporting the right to nazi's being able to have rallies. They likely despise me, but they have the right to despise me for whatever reason they want. They don't deserve to be sent into exile like Chuck advocates.
Delude Member	Fri Aug 10 10:16:23 Yes and the album was retracted and re-released without the song included. Before then you had other songs that supported kill those in law enforcement that did not receive as much scrutiny as "cop killer." And in fact were chart toppers The free speech issue is mainly where how it is presented in the context. This was a song, by an artist describing during a period of another social movement, but also at the same time coincided with a newly released movie where he played as an officer and could have been a promotion of that film. It wasn't the case. But the argument was made. This situation, gab is notoriously known for their content and comments and condoning violent actions and had already moved from other hosts until settling where they are currently and low and behold, once again in the crosshairs by their own doing.
mexicantardnado Member	Fri Aug 10 10:28:03 Duuuuur it's a first duuuu amendment issue duuuur because duuuur private company duuuuur was gonna duuur ban content duuur. Duuuur but players kneeling duuuur in protest duuuur be damned duuuuur
hood Member	Fri Aug 10 10:42:43 "Hell, this goes back to me supporting the right to nazi's being able to have rallies" I also recognize that right. Rallies != Inciting violence. Nobody is saying Gab can't exist because fuck your speech, they're saying "you're hosting illegal content and refuse to act." You'll remember that when Nazi rallies turn to violence, they get shut down (as best as is possible).
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 10 10:48:53 Eh, the "hosting illegal content" shit is a copout. Again, you know the user, it's a single user, out of 465,000, according to Wikipedia. We could always try shutting down street corners for hosting drug deals.
Delude Member	Fri Aug 10 10:56:03 Yeah that's it, and ignore their previous history.
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 10 11:03:47 "their" As oblivious to technology as Hot Rod
Delude Member	Fri Aug 10 11:19:19 Or you being as oblivious to understanding anything constitutionally or criminal justice related just as hot rod. But way to overlook the point because "muh racists free speech." Which isn't the case. Firstly, do you even know the history of Gab and what type of user base it has and their history of moving to multiple hosts related to their content and advocating violence and other blah blah blah? Probably not. If you did then it would be a clear cut case of understanding that they are violating terms of service. Instead you want to say but it was just one user. Yeah one user. Or what is known. But Microsoft has an image. And they have every right to protect rheir image. And your "free speech" ends when you start advocating and inciting violence.
chuck Member	Fri Aug 10 11:25:13 Gab has no right to use any particular company's computers for anything. This is so much more clear cut than the whole "Can a baker be forced to bake a cake for an event they find religiously offensive" issue. If you can't see that, you've got your head up your ass. Who gives a shit whether the guy was inciting violence to begin with or if he pussed out of his shitty opinions and deleted them. If the employees and management of a company have ethical compunctions against a client, they should have every right to fire the client. Let the market decide how valuable it is to fill the niche of providing Schisskopfs with tech.
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 10 11:33:22 "constitutionally" Irrelevant "criminal justice related" Also irrelevant. As I said, feel free to report to authorities. Whether or not the comment is still up hurting your feefees is another matter. "do you even know the history of Gab and what type of user base it has" More irrelevancy! Microsoft is free to remove whatever they want from their product. I'll say it's an overreaction, that a website dedicated to being moderation-free is naturally going to attract extremes, but the tech industry seems to be budding a #metoo movement to curate "hate speech" online. I'll also say that no sane person would blame Twitter for James Gunn or Roseanne. Further; who even knew that Microsoft was hosting Gab, outside of Gab users?
Delude Member	Fri Aug 10 11:47:54 "constitutionally" Irrelevant "criminal justice related" Also irrelevant. As I said, feel free to report to authorities. Whether or not the comment is still up hurting your feefees is another matter. "do you even know the history of Gab and what type of user base it has" More irrelevancy!" It's like you either calling your inner hot rod or you want to be hot rod. I know what I said was not relevant to the topic. It was relevant establishing how fucking retarded you are on the topics. Good god. "Microsoft is free to remove whatever they want from their product. I'll say it's an overreaction, that a website dedicated to being moderation-free is naturally going to attract extremes, but the tech industry seems to be budding a #metoo movement to curate "hate speech" online." "Muh racists free speech." But again you're ignoring the critical component in this situation The advocation and inviting violence or conspiracy for violence. But yeah, I guess a corporation should always think twice about how their product or image my be affected.
hood Member	Fri Aug 10 12:21:26 "Eh, the "hosting illegal content" shit is a copout. Again, you know the user, it's a single user, out of 465,000, according to Wikipedia." Sure. So they should be fine with acting on legal matters for the 1 out of 465,000 users without some fear of epidemic censorship. If they refused to do so, I have no problems with shutting their asses down, just like we did with ZTE and their ignoring of US law in selling goods to NK. We aren't holding them liable for the content itself. Nobody is suggesting that having incitement of violence on their (rented) servers is illegal... up until they're informed of it. Once they know, they need to comply with law and remove it. In the end, the user axed it him/herself, so saga ended. But next time, same stance. If you're knowingly facilitating illegal activity, I have no qualms with revoking your right to conduct (illegal) business.
obaminated Member	Fri Aug 10 15:02:09 This continue this dumb and immature argument. BLM is all about attacking police. should we all shut down their protests? Shit. They are actual physical protests vs random crap posted on the internet. But yeah, lets not focus on the inherent bias, in no way will this blow up in our face, murder's parents say itll be fine.
obaminated Member	Fri Aug 10 15:04:41 This continuing dumb and immature argument... BLM is all about attacking police. should we all shut down their protests...? Shit. They are actual physical protests vs random crap posters on the internet. But yeah, lets not focus on the inherent bias, in no way will this blow up in our face, murder's parents say it'll be fine. *somewhat fixed post
kargen Member	Fri Aug 10 15:11:30 People need to remember the right to freedom of speech doesn't include a right to a certain platform from which to speak. I can't go stand in my neighbors garden and protest okra if he doesn't want me there. I could however stand on a public street corner and spout off about the evils of okra all I want. Need to also remember are right only exist to the extent they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Speech that advocates physical harm to others can at times be considered to be infringing on the rights of others. It is okay for me to state I hope okra plants get root rot and die. It wouldn't be okay for me to say hey lets get together and go kill all the okra tomorrow, be sure to bring your flame throwers. But really if you want to dig up some okra plants I'm okay with it!
mexicantardnado Member	Fri Aug 10 15:15:41 "BLM is all about attacking police." Duuuuur now duuur I make duuuur up shot diuuuuuuur
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: