Microsoft threatens to stop hosting Gab unless posts are removed - <AUTHOR> http://thehill.com/policy/technology/401129-microsoft-threatens-to-boot-gab-over-neo-nazis-hate-speech-posts <comment><USER3> A common argument in philosophy is that bad ideas should occur in the open - where everyone may ridicule them. When they are cast to the shadows they can grow, under everyone's noses, in private where only there are they allowed to exist. In private, these bad ideas cannot be challenged by others and people will be convinced to believe in them, with nobody challenging the idea as a genuinely terrible idea.

It gives bad ideas a breeding ground to foster and _you 'd never even know about it_. By publicly prohibiting speech all that happens is it is brushed under a rug and people pretend it doesn't exist. That doesn't make the problem go away, it's the same as shutting your eyes and covering your ears and pretending the monster in front of you no longer exists. If you get to define certain speech as unspeakable you justify the censorship of _any_ speech determined to be unspeakable when you lose power and someone else steps up to the plate. As history has shown - it's a matter of "when" not "if".

Actions like this serve to placate the public. The general public won't be angry at Microsoft for censoring platforms "known for" or "complacent of" hate speech (or worse). It's _always_ a slippery slope though. Once you open up the can of worms that is censorship you justify future censorship.

I wait to see what will be next on the chopping block.

Edit: A few too many responses to respond to everyone, but if anyone would like to speak with me on it more in depth feel free to email me - <USER2> on how to contact me can be found on my profile.

<comment><USER4> That argument works well in relatively small social groups where people generally can be relied upon to act in good faith, and where there are social disincentives to clinging to bad ideas after they have been refuted.

When you have a small group with social bonds, you don't have to worry about a bad actor constantly repeating their already-refuted arguments to people who haven't heard the refutation.

But when you have the whole internet as your audience, no matter how many times you are refuted, you can say it again and a whole group of people will be hearing it for the first time.

I have been on the Internet since the 80s. What I have personally found is that a lot of its social norms were lifted from academia, and they work very well as defaults in a new social media context. Like Hacker News when it was first launched.

But eventually, every "social medium" on the Internet has its "Eternal September," when the number of new folks in any conversation outweighs the old hands. At that point, the social norms that worked for the small, cohesive group no longer work.

And worse, there are specialist parasites who exploit people's reluctance to change their social norms, and the act in outrageously bad faith.

Sites like HN have survived by changing. For all of the popularity on HN of "unrestricted free speech," HN is actually moderated, and that's why it works.

<comment><USER5> People are better off hearing a bad idea and hearing it refuted then never hearing a bad idea. You could say, "well then detractors of the idea will have to keep refuting it" and you'd be right. That's how public forums work, and I hope you don't take everything your parent's believed for granted just because their detractors have already been "refuted".

<comment><USER6> It's too easy to come up with, spam and spread bad ideas, but actual work to refute them. As long as people are not paid to refute bad actors with an agenda, bad views will eventually stand unchallenged and make life worse for everyone for the profit an amusement of a view. As said refuting partially worked in small communities, but not on a global audience scale where the is no effective way of social sanctions, that would happen in smaller knit ones.

So, in the light of this spreading provenly bad ideas shouldn't be made as cheap of a process that it is now.

<comment><USER7> Yes.

Also, you can refute all you want, but if the bad ideas are better clickbait than your refutations, they will spread faster.

<comment><USER8> A lie is half-way around the world before the truth has its pants on. — Mark Twain

Younger me was a free speech ultimatist. Alas, human nature.

Propaganda works, so well that people aren't even aware of changing their minds. Overton windows. Blowback, where refuting further cements the falsehood. Belief as attire.

Etc, etc.

<comment><USER9> And, as has been clearly illustrated, "trusted" news source can't always be trusted either. So preventing "lies" (lie is almost always a matter of perspective) to spread ... is really always also preventing people from finding out the truth.

We just used to find that acceptable. Wars have been started by fake news from "reputable" sources. If fake news regulations become widespread and usable, they would be trivially easy for the rich and the government to abuse for censorship.

Can you imagine how this would have gone had the president had the ability to prevent "fake news" from spreading ?

[https://globalnews.ca/news/4209011/trump-immigrant-animal- fa...](https://globalnews.ca/news/4209011/trump-immigrant-animal-fake-news/)

(I would argue that in Europe this "fake news" censorship is in fact pretty much normal. Only ... a part of the fake news isn't fake at all, but rather embarrassing to the government. The situation with rioting in French cities is 100x worse than sites like "Le Monde" report (which ones? Let's just say any > 1 mil ppl and there's only a few you'd be wrong about. Nice is pretty damn bad, for instance. Destruction in the city center every friday. You should see the security measures shops are taking, wtf). And other things that the government doesn't like get extremely downplayed as well : France was pretty much shut down due to a student strike in Paris for Macron's labor laws 3 times, and twice for his agricultural policy (both of which are downright abusive, and I'd say the protests were _very_ justified) ... and there was a small mention of a protest march in Le Monde. Mass car torchings are a weekly occurrence since 2005 or so where I live. It baffles me, but it really looks like they're literally doing this just to save face for that asshole Macron. I get it ... I get it. He "saved Europe", especially after Brexit. He also fucked up France, and that matters more to me, and should matter more to French media and French voters. It's absurd because there literally isn't a single person in France that doesn't know these events happen, so what's the point of keeping them out of newspapers ? Do they think people will just forget ?)

<comment><USER10> > _lie is almost always a matter of perspective_

This meme I do not understand. There is one physical reality[0]. A thing either happened, or it didn't. Physics doesn't change its workings because of _perspective_. A precise enough statement about reality can be either true or false, there's no middle. There's no "depends on perspective". If I say, "the Sun is shining", the truth of that fact does not depend on perspective.

Of course, very often we're dealing with complex statements that deal with many aspects of reality simultaneously. We often talk about indirect evidence. But that doesn't suddenly open a wormhole to a post-truth dimension. We have tools and frameworks to deal with that. We can say, there is strong evidence that this occurred. Or, there's strong evidence that it didn't. Or, the current evidence points in neither way.

Arguing that truth and lies are a matter of perspective is just trying to deliberately confuse people. After all, if we really accept this view, then reality doesn't exist, nothing makes sense, and we can all go back to the caves we came from.

\--

[0] - simulation ideas and other things aside, though they are all conveniently defined in a way indistinguishable from us all being separate minds inhabiting one reality.

<comment><USER11> The idea that objective truth about reality not only exists but is accessible to the sufficiently enlightened, at least if they use the right "tools and frameworks", is a bold philosophical thesis that has undergone quite a lot of criticism in the past few thousand years. The idea that advocates of 'perspectivism' are simply trying to confuse people is absurd. "There are not facts, only interpretations" people are just as passionate about trying to make themselves understood as anyone else.

Your comment is _exactly why_ it is so important that we continue to value free speech. Many people are utterly convinced that their views of reality represent absolute and objective truth, totally unaware of the philosophical assumptions underpinning their woldview. History is full of people convinced their view of reality represented absolute and objective truth. They seldom agreed.

Giving such people the tools to censor their opponents is very dangerous. First, the set of people who are wielding those tools will inevitably change. Secondly, well, where they burn books, they will someday burn people.

<comment><USER10> At no point I was trying to argue against free speech. Just about the notion that "lie is almost always a matter of perspective". I'm aware there has been criticism of the concept of objective reality in philosophy, but I'm also not aware of any framework of thought that would fit the observable reality better. In fact, all the progress of science and technology, as well as all communications we do with each other, are based on assumption that there is an objective reality which we can observe, and about which we can exchange information that lead us to create a consistent, shared view.

<comment><USER8> I have no idea how to articulate these notions, please forgive.

#1

While I think of myself as a Popperian, I've begun to adopt a "true enough to act now" view of the world. It's close to the notion "a good plan violently executed today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow".

Mostly, I'm sick of the debate. I have relatives and friends who are creationists, climate change deniers, supply-siders, etc. Instead of trying to convince (persuade) people about the truth, opposing the torrent of bullshit forces pushing these idealogical rocks up hill, I now focus on "ok, what can we do _today_?"

In the case of evolution (vs creationism). The value of the theory isn't that it's true (or not). Rather, the value is a set of axioms that allows us to make reasonably good predictions about the world.

So when it comes to the complicated topics (eg current events), I'm trying to relax my standards for objective truth, be satisfied with "true enough, for now".

#2

We need more data. (aka You can't manage what you can't measure.)

I was a tree hugger when GIS and satellite imagery were being rolled out. They completely changed the conversation about clearcutting, habitat loss, impacts, etc. It was no longer a just propaganda war. Legislators could see for themselves, if they wanted to, what was happening.

#3

Stop fighting "fake news". There's a better way.

Verifiable attribution, sources. All source data needs to be published.

Every publisher (that wants to be verifiable) would have their own blockchain(s), sign their own works. Whenever a reader sees a news item, they could verify the authenticity by checking the block chain.

This is no different than adding SHAs to software releases.

Each blockchain would be seeded with a CA, leveraging our current chain of trust infrastructure.

#4

Also, the story is made in the edit. So publishers need to show their work. Just like in science. Sure, cut down a two-hour interview to just 5 minutes. But you still have to post the original footage.

#5

No one challenged my abandonment of "free speech ultimatism." So what's the alternative?

Recognizing that cognition is social, that we (mostly) cohabitant a shared reality:

Defending public discourse from the abuses of free speech is a tragedy of the commons [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)]. This framing goes further than Paradox of Tolerance [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)] by justifying the limitation of some speech in service of the greater good.

[Maybe call it the "marketplace of ideas" to engage the Freedom Markets™ zealots.]

I have no idea how to police the commons.

But I do think punishing parties for knowingly lying would be a good start.

There was a time when FCC broadcast licenses where contingent on serving the public good. And license renewals were serious business.

I'd be okay with doing the same for online mediums as well.

There would be two classes of speech: anonymous and verified (per #3 above). Verified speech, and the aggregators, would vouch for what they say.

If someone is found guilty of using verified speech to harm the public good (jury of their peers, public hearings), their root CA would get revoked.

They can still publish anonymously, of course. But they can no longer claim to be telling the truth.

\---

Okay. Thanks for listening, humoring me. I have these notions rattling around in my head. And I like your comment history. And wanted to share with someone(s), in case I get hit by a bus.

<comment><USER7> Upon reflection, that is truly a great analysis! I just read Larry Sanger's Everipedia proposal, and believe that the concept of trust revocation would be a useful addition.

Would you be interested in fleshing it out as an Everipedia page? If you're not editing Everipedia yet, I can help you with that. Anonymously,if you like. Or I could write the page, with your permission and perhaps input.

<comment><USER8> Thank you for the Everipedia tip. Hmmm, very interesting. Sending you a PM via email.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This sort of thing illustrates the biggest issue with web hosting, domain registrars and the internet's infrastructure in general; everything is privately owned by companies who get unlimited rights to decide who and what they want to host.

The solution is to require all hosting and domain companies to act as utilities, and require neutrality in regards to any content that's legal. They're not private forums or homes, they're the internet equivalent to the electricity company or the water company. They're the internet equivalent to a phone service provider or ISP.

Why do/did ISPs have to deal with net neutrality while large hosting companies and registrars get free reign? The power company can't cut off your service because you offended someone online or what not.

If you want to argue the internet is a place for free speech, then it needs places you can host content/register domains/whatever that act like a public square, not a shopping centre.

<comment><USER13> > The solution is to require all hosting and domain companies to act as > utilities, and require neutrality in regards to any content that's legal. > They're not private forums or homes, they're the internet equivalent to the > electricity company or the water company. They're the internet equivalent to > a phone service provider or ISP.

Exactly this. When the First Amendment was authored, I don't think it was even conceivable that any organization besides a government or state church could effectively censor speech at scale. Now that we have "private" organizations that effectively have that power, it's perhaps time that the law be updated to reflect that change in facts and preserve people's right to free expression.

The internet shouldn't be another Zuccotti Park.

<comment><USER12> When the First Amendment was authored, I suspect people thought public property was going to be where the largest audience was, with the town hall and park and square and what not being the main platform for discussion. Reaching the crowd meant going out with a handbell or standing on a box passing out pamphlets. Stopping the government from arresting someone advertising in the town square was more important than stopping a shop from kicking out a customer they didn't like.

But that's not the case now. The platforms hosting your work are privately owned, the large community websites/social networks/whatever with millions or billions of users are privately owned, and a larger portion of real life locations people frequent are privately owned too.

The way society is going seems to be making the amendment less and less relevant as time goes on.

<comment><USER14> >The way society is going seems to be making the amendment less and less relevant as time goes on.

Exactly. As society moves more and more online, it moves more and more into a virtual territory that is owned at every level by corporate entities who grant no rights to their users. If we're not careful, we could end up with a strange cyber-feudal arrangement.

The "it's their platform" argument seems strange to me when you start getting into the question of corporations beyond a certain size or monopoly. In the 1700s I'm sure there was a lot of arguing that certain kinds of protest were groundless because this is "the King's land." It took a re-examination of what the boundaries should be before that changed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> One thing that hasn't yet been remarked on here is that the 48-hour-warning message said that the linked posts were flagged for having _phishing links_. Notice that the statements made afterward by MS were not on the grounds of the original "phishing links" report, but focusing on the content.

However, if you look at the posts, you'll see a fair amount of unsavory content but no phishing links.

I feel like this was purposeful on the part of whatever political group made these reports.

Most likely, these hosting companies have automated anti-spam/phishing systems whereby, if a large number of reports come in, they will automatically send out an alert to the suspected offending party.

If Outraged Group X goes to the company saying "this site you're hosting has vile speech and so you should take it down," it probably has to go through an internal company process, which might have a slightly higher bar for acting on it.

However, if Outraged Group X falsely claims that "this site is hosting phishing links", something which might trigger an algorithmic response, then the company cannot easily reverse course -- because then the story becomes "Company ABC actively reverses course on allowing hate speech." The PR fallout locks them in.

</comment><comment><USER15> It's disconcerting to see how many tech and free speech people are clamoring for the censorship of dissenting opinion and are jubilant when it happens.

Free speech has always been a very counter-intuitive process. Opinions that directly oppose yours or even your very person will rub you the wrong way, and to be intent on defending the right of your opponent to voice his opinion seems paradoxical, but we nevertheless conceded that this serves the greater good.

The recent Alex Jones incident was legitimized on the basis of dissemination of dangerous ideas. With Gab, the argument is that it is hate speech. The most compelling argument for free speech is that it removes the subjective and variable limits of speech and by extension, slippery slopes.

If you must know, while I do consider myself a political conservative, I cannot bear to listen to Alex Jones and I've never used Gab. I'm radically free speech which means I enjoy living in a world where literally everyone can say quite literally everything. Whether there is a slippery slope angle to all this is not even relevant for me. I want to hear the ideas of everyone who is broadcasting.

The very arguments I am expounding on are already controversial, but they weren't very long ago. Makes you think.

<comment><USER16> The free speech absolutists would have been more convincing had they been as up-in-arms about the banning of ISIS or ISIS-affiliated accounts over the last several years. This happened by the hundreds-of-thousands.

<comment><USER17> For better or worse foreign and domestic terrorist speech is treated separately. If ISIS was a domestic terrorist organization afaik they would have 1A rights.

<comment><USER16> What's the connection to the first amendment? Did the government dictate bans? I saw very little concern from the "free speech" crowd about the government's ability to censor US publishers from publishing content by foreign authors.

<comment><USER18> There's been plenty of concern about that. See the Mehanna case from a few years back. Also, the USG was giving Twitter shit about having terrorist content on their site for years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The posts in question are frankly pretty awful, but this does kind of put the lie to the idea that if you don't like FaceGoogleBook's censorship you can just set up your own website.

<comment><USER20> Well you can host your own website on your own server.

Of course, I do wonder how far this goes. What happens if the DNS server refuses to host the IP lookup? Host your own DNS server? What if the browsers refuse to allow access to the site? Build your own browser? What if ISPs refuse to transfer the data over the wire? Make your own internet?

People have defended that this vs. Net Neutrality (at least the extent of the ability of an ISP to control what goes over its wires) as having a core difference, but it feels to me they are closer than people realize and the standards set by one can influence the other.

<comment><USER21> > Well you can host your own website on your own server.

Sure, then the people who drove you off Facebook/Amazon/Apple iTunes/Youtube/Azure/EC2/Digitalocean/Cloudflare will go after your DNS registrar and the ISP/CDN/colocation-facility you're using. They won't give up and they'll ruthlessly go after every single commercial entity you do business with. After all, if it's not the _government_ punishing you for speech, it's not censorship and it's fine!

That's the trick of this kind of lawfare -- having _any kind_ of internet presence inherently involves relationships with private, non-governmental entities, and it's disturbingly easy to suborn them and shame them into refusing to do business with unsavoury people.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, I don't buy that. If Stormfront and Daily Stormer can still be up, then there can't really be any credibility to that argument.

<comment><USER21> > Yeah, I don't buy that. If Stormfront and Daily Stormer can still be up, > then there can't really be any credibility to that argument.

That those two loathsome websites are still up doesn't mean that the technique I described is invalid; it just means it doesn't have a 100% kill rate, and it certainly works on less resourced and less indefatigable targets.

I'm not worried about those specific websites -- I'm worried about the increased spread and normalisation of the "contact everyone %s has a business relationship with, and _shame them until they drop them as a customer_ " tactic. Where does it end? We've established that pressuring domain registrars and hosts _is fine_ ; what's fair game after that?

Is it fine for me to pressure and suborn an electric company into cutting off service to someone I don't like (after all, without electricity, they can't make those bad internet posts!). If I can rile up enough of an internet mob, can I get them evicted from their residence, simply by annoying their landlord until the trouble's not worth the monthly rent cheque? I've seen firsthand these tactics used by internet mobs and it's a very ugly process, and it's not something whose prevalence I'm happy to see expand.

Just because in _these cases_ the targets are generally disgusting doesn't mean it's something that should be tolerated ( _if only_ because those who you hate will positively _relish_ a chance to use that against your side of things).

<comment><USER22> "Is it fine for me to pressure and suborn an electric company into cutting off service to someone I don't like (after all, without electricity, they can't make those bad internet posts!). If I can rile up enough of an internet mob, can I get them evicted from their residence, simply by annoying their landlord until the trouble's not worth the monthly rent cheque?"

The really funny, and by funny I mean sad, thing about your argument, is that you're all upset about this happening to racists and bigots, but you completely ignore that this was a fact of life for many of the marginalized communities that they terrorize.

"I've seen firsthand these tactics used by internet mobs and it's a very ugly process, and it's not something whose prevalence I'm happy to see expand."

You know what's even uglier? The tactics used by white supremacists to terrorize marginalized communities.

<comment><USER21> > The really funny, and by funny I mean sad, thing about your argument, is > that you're all upset about this happening to racists and bigots, but you > completely ignore that this was a fact of life for many of the marginalized > communities that they terrorize.

No. This is frankly wrong. In my comment ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17730702](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17730702)) that you replied to, I described the websites in question as "loathsome" and "generally disgusting". If that wasn't enough, I will say it explicitly: I do not endorse/support racists or bigots or white supremacists or white nationalists or Nazis or Neo-Nazis or the alt-right or other flavours of fascism.

I find this incident mildly troubling not because of the targets in question (I don't give a solitary fuck about Gab or the Daily Stormer or their users/admins/owners), but because of the precedent it sets -- and specifically that this precedent will be exploited _by these racists_ , against marginalised communities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Having read the article but not knowing anything about the posts themselves, I think most of this thread misses the point.

Clearly Microsoft knew it was hosting Gab and what Gab was. There's a troll argument that suggests Gab is just "free speech twitter", but of course that's not the case: I've been screenshotting the front page for months, from a random anonymous account, and _every time I 've done it_ the front page was full of horrible Islamophobic, racist, and anti-Semitic crap. That and bot content.

My point here is: everybody knows that's what Gab is. Microsoft isn't pushing back on Gab's anti-Semitism --- without anti-Semitism, there is no Gab. They had specific harm reduction problems with a pair of posts, one of which, according to this article, was a call for violence directed towards Jewish people.

<comment><USER24> The original story, is apparently not available at this link, but the footer, also written by Andrew Torba, owner of Gab.ai , is available: [https://medium.com/@Torbahax/this-is-a-joke-and-it-is- fake-n...](https://medium.com/@Torbahax/this-is-a-joke-and-it-is-fake- news-a1fa3fc74228)

partial quote:

" Gab is absolutely not a "white nationalist social media platform." We are a free speech social media platform. We welcome everyone and have since the day we launched. My co-founder Ekrem is a Muslim Kurd in Turkey. Our Chief Communications Officer Utsav is an Indian and a practicing Hindu. Our "frog logo" that the media wants so desperately to tie to "pepe," was inspired by Exodus 8:2–7 and was designed by our Creative Director Brandon, who is Jewish."

<comment><USER23> That's an interesting thing for him to say, because Gab is absolutely and obviously a white nationalist social media platform.

Want another example? Arguing with Ken White (Popehat) on Twitter, the official Gab account RT'd a white nationalist mocking Ken for having adopted Asian children.

[https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1026849669425520640](https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1026849669425520640)

<comment><USER25> I think it's important to distinguish between platforms that host content of a given topic, and platforms that are specifically set up for a certain topic. For example, Reddit has /r/motorcycles, but I wouldn't call it "a motorcycling discussion platform". I'd call advrider.com or bayarearidersforum.com motorcycle discussion platforms. They're websites specifically set up for motorcycling related discussion. A website that takes a strong stance on free speech like Gab probably has a significant overrepresentation of White Nationalists, by virtue of displacement - most other big platforms ban this content so they migrate to the few places that do allow it. In that sense I think it's fair to call Gab "a platform that tolerates white nationalist" but not "a white nationalist platform".

Equating tolerance of an idea as endorsement for an idea is the root of a lot of problems we see today, in my opinion.

<comment><USER26> Are you just going to ignore the fact that _the official Twitter account for Gab_ actively promotes white supremacist talking points? It only takes about 30 seconds of scrolling through their feed to see this.

<comment><USER25> I scrolled for not only 30 seconds or so but at least a minute. Nowhere do I find Gab actively promoting white supremacy. As far as promoting "white supremacist talking points" this is a pretty substantially different actually supporting white supremacy, and support for that allegation is still pretty vague. The closes things I found are:

> "Hate speech" is free speech, as decided unanimously by the Supreme Court of > the United States of America.

Sure, white supremacists may be more keen to protect hate speech but this statement is factually correct.

> Right-wing platforms provide refuge to digital outcasts — and Alex Jones

Again, hosting a speaker is not the same as promoting or endorsing what is said. By this logic, Berkeley endorsed Milo Y.

> At some point you have to ask yourself: just who is pushing for the > censorship? Once you learn who, there is no going back. You can't unsee what > has been seen. You can't unlearn what has been learned.

Arguably echoes allegations that Jewist people control the media, but this is vague at best.

Furthermore, the account states that it would not ban left-wing speakers that had written hateful message about whites:

> The @verge defends the anti-white hate of @sarahjeong then turns around and > maligns Gab as "alt right" for defending free speech for everyone (including > Sarah!)

I think official Gab twitter account is consistent Gab's claim to allow all legal speech, including hateful speech regardless of political leaning.

<comment><USER27> > Arguably echoes allegations that Jewist people control the media, but this > is vague at best.

Don't insult our intelligence. It is obviously a vile statement about Jewish people.

[http://archive.is/q8Guu](http://archive.is/q8Guu) if you need it to be even more obvious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Threats of violence already violate Gab's ToS:

"Users are prohibited from calling for the acts of violence against others, promoting or engaging in self-harm, and/or acts of cruelty, threatening language or behaviour that clearly, directly and incontrovertibly infringes on the safety of another user or individual(s)."

[https://gab.ai/about/guidelines](https://gab.ai/about/guidelines)

<comment><USER29> I wonder what this says about Gab's reaction.

Why would they give Little the option to delete his posts instead of banning him and removing the posts themselves? If I was in their position, it wouldn't even be a question of free speech considering he was breaching the ToS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The content here is quite disgusting, and I certainly do not defend it, but I really take issue with what is happening here in principle.

Overall this is similar to a runaway effect that negligence of the environment can have. At a certain point it will be too late to solve the problem i.e. control emissions or oppose this kind of authoritarianism under different circumstances. The very means to do so will either be impotent or impossible.

By then you are reliant on some new magical invention to resolve the problem, or a large death toll in the millions, which changes the entire landscape.

Corporations certainly have the right to do this, but they are only choosing to do so because there are strong winds blowing in this direction. It's important that they are opposed, before this paves the way for big mistakes to be made.

It's important that these kinds of ideas see sunlight. Ideas that promote tolerance, peace and common sense will win in the end, provided we keep talking. If talking comes to an end, we know what comes next. These ideas will only find more room to grow, and see greater validation when they are opposed in this kind of authoritarian manner.

Rather than advocating a strategy where we are relying on governments and corporations to solve these problems, we should be the ones fixing our societies and arguing against disgusting ideas such as this, with well reasoned arguments, or even humor, both of which have historically been great at winning ideological battles.

I am sure this crowd knows their Aaron Satie.

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

<comment><USER31> I hope this crowd knows their Joseph Goebbels.

"When our enemies say: But we used to grant you freedom of opinion -- yes, you granted it to us, that is no proof that we should do the same for you! That you gave us that just proves how stupid you are!"

(source: [https://de.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels](https://de.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels) and [https://www.sr-mediathek.de/index.php?seite=7&id=37143](https://www.sr- mediathek.de/index.php?seite=7&id=37143) ; translation by me)

<comment><USER30> So take Goebbels' advice? Not sure what you are getting at.

Our enemies are fascists who will take away our rights, therefore anyone suspected of eventually becoming a fascist will have their rights preemptively taken away so that it does not come to that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Little's posts on Gab are awful, and Microsoft is in his rights to refuse service to anyone. However they don't have the capacity to do a fair manual triage of all the services they are hosting, and they should avoid doing it until legally constrained.

<comment><USER33> Too lazy to actually look it up but I think that MS are getting ahead of the lawsuit from Europe. Europe will fine you X dollars for every second / minute / hour or something that a bad post is left online. So even if GAB does not comply with EU regs then Azure surely will and EU will go after the weakest link. MS knows this, and they don't care about GAB or Free Speech or whatever so they're going to shut them down if they don't comply.

IMO Europes rules are designed this way on purpose, they are sort of exporting their rules, and eventually if that's allowed to continue the internet will devolve to the lowest common denominator. Whomever has the biggest most enforceable fines rules the internet.

<comment><USER34> I don't think there is a pan-European set of free speech laws. These are per country.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I have an alternate solution especially for Gab and Voat. Rather than allowing them to become known cesspits, advertise them to people and say, "see how others' opinions exist" \- people will sign up for curiosity, they'll sign up to argue, etc. But most importantly, they'll be there on that platform and perhaps some people will actually learn to communicate openly with people they disagree with or whose views they despise.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, no. People will see the vile toxicity right up front (it's not hidden at all there), and they'll leave in 5 minutes.

<comment><USER35> I think I understand what you're saying, but if it was so vile and so toxic, why would people keep returning to it and stay so involved? Whether you happen to like it or not, these are communities just as much as any other. I think it would be better for the human condition if, instead of dismissing them as "vile toxicity", we looked at what they're saying and what's caused them to feel a need to say it.

Then again, that takes more than five minutes.

<comment> Sol- Their opinions are plainly wrong by any modern standard (i.e. killing "subhumans", etc.), so there's no merit in approaching them on that front.

Though as you say, it might be necessary to understand them to prevent such extremism from spreading. But at that point it's very well worth asking if all that 'understanding' is really more effective than just banning such platforms.

Worked for Reddit, for instance. There was a study that showed that the prevalence of hate-speech was decreased after they banned the racist subreddits. Even people engaged in those communities became less extreme after you've removed their echo chamber.

<comment><USER35> It "worked" for Reddit because people moved over to Voat or back to the chans. Just because the community moves off a certain platform doesn't actually change the existence of either the people or their opinions. I want to make clear that I agree with you that an opinion that terms any member of genus Homo as subhuman is wrong; and that killing is also wrong. On the other hand, I for one am curious about how these memes originated and continue to propagate; and I feel that direct engagement is the only way we'll find that out. Massive cultural impact cannot be made by simply avoiding other opinions. After all, Columbus massively underestimated the circumference of the Earth compared to Eratosthenes - but the Portuguese still funded his travels, and his trip was successful, even if by complete accident. Engaging with those who have wrong opinions can sometimes have unexpected positive impact.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is a very clear example of hate speech and people in the comment section seems to unknowingly or deliberately conflating it with free speech. Free speech does not mean you call upon people to incite violence against a particular set of people.

<comment> another-cuppa Yes it does, actually, whether you like it or not. But maybe you'd like to call into question whether such speech should still be protected as free speech. The difficulty is in establishing where you draw the line.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I spent done time digging through the posts (and researching the view points). My conclusion: This article and the Twitter posts feel like an advertisement for Gab. It's currently building a userbase, primarily from people banned from Twitter for expressing extreme views. In this case it's capitalizing on a very well known user, a stance supporting the user, and the user self censoring.

Something feels off (see my quote). This is timed around Gab seeking funding (see Twitter: [https://mobile.twitter.com/getongab/status/10275500729328517...](https://mobile.twitter.com/getongab/status/1027550072932851713))

I suspect further exposure will push Gab to censor. However in the interim: it will grow based on the controversy to ban/remain open

quoting my own reply >Researching Gab: the posts from Gab was immediately followed by a funding request. Users pointing out how it appears to be "Twitter for racists" add (cherry picked) posts highlighting the advocation of destruction if Jewish memorials (and enslavement of the Jewish people).

>To comment on the article: this appears to be shining the sun on what appears a racist bastion advocating violence. (I might be wrong. Gab didn't remove the posts, the user did) Or to rephrase Microsoft's threat as I'm seeing it: if [Gab] does not remove a post [advocating violence] , Gab must seek hosting on another platform.

>So which strategy worked? Ban or exposure? For Microsoft? For Gab? For the user?

>I don't know that the answer is the same for each group. I suspect given the article, exposure pushed Microsoft to push for a ban. A ban pressured the user, by thinking their platform. So where does Gab stand?

</comment><comment><USER38> Who are the organisations pushing for these bans? Are they completely anonymous?

<comment><USER39> Who said they are organizations? It to doesn't take much to see some content, do a little research to identify a responsible host, and file a ToS complaint.

<comment><USER38> Yeah. It just seems very coordinated. I would have thought had it been random individuals there would be a lot of chatter and cheers when a call for a ban succeeded. And some chatter on who to pick. But I could be wrong.

Just wondered if someone could put a face on who is pushing for this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm not convinced this is a true example of censorship. Historically, censorship relates to an institution's ability to prevent information before it becomes public, or to manipulate information to serve its own means. It assumes an almost complete control over the means of information production, whereby a populace barely even sees a glimpse of the censored information. Since Little's neo-nazi propaganda is public and is being openly discussed, he cannot truly be censored. It's more a publicity stunt by Microsoft. There is certainly censorship in the U.S., but this doesn't seem like a true example of it to me. I also think it's a slippery slope fallacy to say that removing a forum about torturing Jews (and other hate speech) will inevitably lead to totalitarian censorship of all provocative ideas. Please show me an example where a government or a private institution withdrew its support of speech like this, which then led to the wholesale censorship of free speech in a country.

</comment><comment><USER41> Microsoft should be able to decide who they do business with. That's typical contract law almost everywhere.

If they decide get certain content is against their own values, culture and risks the safety of their own staff, even if that risk isn't an immediate one, they should always have the option of termination the contract.

That's not censorship, that's business. A company doesn't owe anyone their service, unless they provide a public utility or because they're a monopoly. In terms of web hosting, neither is the case with Microsoft.

</comment><comment><USER42> Microsoft's comments are in keeping with a common misconception about the First Amendment.

For clarity, the relevant part of the First Amendment is here:

> Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the > press ...

Nowhere does it say anything about private companies, other groups, or even other branches of government having to obey this rule.

I don't have data on how many people actually believe the First Amendment lets them say whatever they want wherever they want. I'm guessing it's a pretty high number, though.

</comment><comment><USER43> Or just use this secure key fob holder: [https://youtu.be/-MILCnDczC0?t=9m17s](https://youtu.be/-MILCnDczC0?t=9m17s)

</comment><comment><USER44> From Robert Bolt's A Man For All Seasons (substitute "principle of free speech" for "law").

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

\</comment><comment>-----

People in positions of power generally assume that they will always be in power. Many of people during the Obama presidency, wished that the president was less susceptible to gridlock between the various branches of government. In January 2016, most people never even considered the possibility that in 1 year, Donald Trump would be sworn in as President.

Right now, the progressive, center left is in a very strong position with regards to the tech industry. All the major players are sensitive to their causes, and against the alt-right. A lot of people are unhappy that the current norms of free speech are causing the social media companies to be slow in taking down alt-right, hate content.

People forget, that things change. What if Zuckerberg decides that as a rich, white, male who is accused of indirectly helping Trump get elected, his future political prospects are better if he goes all in and casts his full support behind Trump? What if Twitter continues to have monetization problems and get bought out by a group of wealthy GOP donors?

How easy would it be to call any discussion of European colonialism and imperialism or of slavery in the United States, hate speech against whites? How easy would it be to label any discussion of increasing taxes because the 0.1% are not paying their fare share as hate speech against the rich. How about labeling any post advocating protest against ICE as targeted harassment?

If you knew that in 5 years, it would be the right that was running Facebook, Twitter, the ISPs, etc, what mores concerning free speech would you want to preserve, even when it involves a private entity.

I think a successful democracy in a polarized country involves both sides realizing that there will come a time when they will be out of power and encouraging cultural mores and norms that make sure they are able to communicate freely and have employment even when the other side is in power - either in government or in the private sector.

</comment><comment><USER45> "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -John Gilmore

Lately this is getting absurd. I believe this quote is still true, but the amount of 'I don't like what is being said so therefore you should be silenced' is going too far. I don't agree with what this guy said (or even know who he is aside from what was said in the article), but I'm alarmed that Microsoft would go after Gab for a user on Gab's platform.

<comment><USER46> Lately we're sort of learning that absolute freedom to express any opinion you like is kind of a bad idea, especially at web scale. The example of Germany, which is freer and more democratic than the USA despite having strict laws forbidding expressing any sort of Nazi-like opinion, supports this.

<comment><USER17> How is Germany more free and Democratic? Aren't they purposefully less free because of anti-Nazi laws?

<comment><USER46> Germany consistently places higher than the USA on international press freedom indices. The press, in general, is a protected institution there, whereas here, blowhards like Trump do their damnedest to intimidate journalists out of doing their job, which is to expose the dealings of government to the public.

And you don't have to read Hackernews for long to see how terminally fucked and anti-freedom the U.S. justice system is. Things like plea bargaining, money bail, and systemic racism in law enforcement and criminal proceedings make U.S. "freedom" illusory unless you're white and wealthy.

As for democracy, it's well known that votes in Congress can be easily bought in the US, far more easily than in Germany's parliament.

<comment><USER17> How is this freedom attributable in any direct way to restrictions on "hate speech"?

<comment><USER46> Well, you could argue that Germany successfully avoided renazifying in part because of its anti-hate-speech laws.

Even absent this, the point is that Germany is, in practice, freer than the USA _despite_ having a less absolute stance on free speech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Who can make better tools for IPFS and other services that are more difficult to take down?

The tooling is the main thing stopping people from using more autonomous decentralized services.

</comment><comment><USER45> "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -John Gilmore

Lately this is getting absurd. I believe this quote is still true, but the amount of 'I don't like what is being said so therefore you should be silenced' is going too far. I don't agree with what this guy said (or even know who he is aside from what was said in the article), but I'm alarmed that Microsoft would go after Gab for a user on Gab's platform.

</comment><comment><USER48> Religions? Do they've all scientifically verified ideas? People still believe in them. Not only that, religion is also given special place in the constitution and law of some countries.

Religion is still going strong. Try to take away anyone's religion based on refutations then tell me that refuting bad idea really works.

Till then many others will try to mix mash bad ideas into new religions.

</comment><comment><USER49> Good for Microsoft for drawing the correct line in the sand. Calls to violence are not protected speech.

The Alex Jones censorship is another matter. His stuff is pretty crazy, but not worthy of being taken down. Louis Farrakhan says lots crazy stuff and I don't believe he's been censored at all. There is definitely a double standard at play.

</comment><comment><USER50> > Neo-Nazi deletes anti-Semitic posts from 'alt-right' Twitter

Who writes these terrible headlines? Why do these blogspam sites refuse to put the actual topic in the subject?

This makes it sound like Twitter is alt-right. It's not even accurate since Gab isn't political or "alt-right," Nazis use it because they refuse to censor.

<comment><USER51> > Gab isn't political or "alt-right"

haha, good one!

<comment><USER52> its the last recourse for the alt-right because other platforms censor them. I'm sure if you posted far-left stuff on there it wouldn't be censored either, but there is no point because most social media platforms don't censor far- left thoughts anyway.

<comment><USER53> > most social media platforms don't censor far-left thoughts anyway.

They do, though.

[https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/09/google-censors- block...](https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/09/google-censors-block-access- to-counterpunch-and-other-progressive-sites/)

<comment><USER52> google results are a social media platform?

And i said "most".

<comment><USER54> Well, there are all the people who point out that Twitter will take ages to respond to a report of a conservative-leaning account making threats and will usually end up saying "that doesn't violate our guidelines". But somehow quickly suspends left-leaning accounts which say similar things. Especially if you say them in the direction of a blue-checkmark conservative-leaning account.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> 'alt-right' Twitter just sounds like a subculture on Twitter, not a separate network called Gab.

take note journalists... or take note devs that happen to work in open office plans next to the writers. lets not refer to things off of twitter as analogous to subcultures of twitter.

</comment><comment><USER55> GL;HF Microsoft Azure, attempting to force your customers' content policy (in cases for which Azure is clearly not liable) is one more excellent reason not to buy Azure, right around only supporting IPv6 on load balancers (not directly on hosts).

Though on the flip side, I think some of these posts could violate Gab's own ToS, so even if their OP didn't remove them voluntarily, they would likely not have survived long anyway.

</comment><comment><USER56> Slippery slope, if I've ever seen one. This can and will be used against legitimate dissidents and protesters at some point, that I can pretty much guarantee. Bottom line: I'd be much more comfortable if takedowns could only be done in response to illegal activity on the account, and only after a court order. Otherwise some techno-bureaucrat serves as a judge, jury, and executioner, and I'm categorically not OK with that.

</comment><comment><USER57> This thread is a good example of the "sunlight is the best disinfectant" fallacy.

It is debunked by research. The thread has countless instances of it. In each, someone goes to the trouble of debunking it. The "exposing bad ideas reduces their power" camp is unmoved. The "the research says you're wrong" camp is unmoved.

The false notion is firmly wedged into the public mind because the research came too late. I don't know a good way to prevent this while not shutting down good but unpopular ideas. Letting Nazis, goofballs, and fascists on to all the big social media platforms has obviously not reduced their numbers.

<comment><USER37> Can you source that? Otherwise I can't tell if I'm arguing with you, your source, or a straw man.

<comment><USER57> No one asked for a citation on the widespread claim that exposing bad ideas to the light makes them go away, or at least decline in popularity. It's stated and taken as truth, but no one provided proof that it's true. I matched the standard of evidence applied to the original claim.

It might be wise to actually investigate that bit of "common sense" before betting the future of the world on people's ability to deal with a flood of misinformation. Maybe I'm wrong. No one bothered to back it up with evidence though. Start there, not with my response to the claim.

You could wisely point out I claimed there's research, and I could at least provide it. The research I've seen tells me this won't help since people tend to discount research that goes against their beliefs, and use research that supports those beliefs as reinforcement. It won't do you any good if you start out with a strong belief in the unsupported original claim, as seems to be the case with most people I see here making it.

<comment><USER58> > You could wisely point out I claimed there's research, and I could at least > provide it. The research I've seen tells me this won't help since people > tend to discount research that goes against their beliefs, and use research > that supports those beliefs as reinforcement. It won't do you any good if > you start out with a strong belief in the unsupported original claim, as > seems to be the case with most people I see here making it.

Come on man, I think I'm on your side here, but this is a cop-out. If you're not sure where to find the studies, just say so -- otherwise, why hold them back at this point? (Surely you don't hold the extreme view that everyone is completely impervious to evidence, so you can't just say that the evidence proves itself not to be worth sharing.)

I too remember reading about evidence contradicting the 'sunlight is the best disinfectant' meme -- for example, studies demonstrating that false claims stick with people and continue to affect their thinking, even to the point of being held as beliefs, after they are convincingly refuted (or perhaps even withdrawn by the person who presented the original claim, who admits that they completely made it up). If I have time later, I'll see if I can find some good sources to link to.

<comment><USER37> Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds - [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts- dont...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change- our-minds)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> We are living in a new century of censorship. BigTech companies have become so big, that they are the one deciding what to allow or not allow based on some weird guidelines ("Hate speech" means everything and nothing). It became extremely difficult to put an opinion out there and not relying to at least one of them at some level.

This weird censorship is perfectly legal since it's coming from private entities. What really annoys me is that it's always the same side that is "censored". All the FAANG//MAGA being extremely left leaning.

There is going to be a backslash. It is mounting, and people start to realize.

<comment><USER60> > What really annoys me is that it's always the same side that is "censored"

Untrue. Religious extremist content has been silently taken down for years.

People advocating for workers rights, anarchists and communists have all had a history of facing censorship online.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> I don't know, somehow along the way, videos of beheadings and other cruel content became ok and simple text/opinions can now put entire sites at risk. I am not familiar with the content of the messages, but from now on it's enough to get certain ideas labeled same as these, then it will have to be deleted. The number of labels will increase, and so will the reporting and the deleting.

</comment><comment><USER62> The letter is encouraging in that it at least softly implies Microsoft applies a First Amendment analysis to take down issues. A First Amendment analysis is much superior and more just compared to the injustice applied to Alex Jones and any number of 10000s of removed youtube videos and so on. At the end of the day, tech companies need to realize they are just common carrier pipes and do not have authority to police the bits on their servers anymore than a city bus has the authority to police the politics of its passengers.</comment>


Seamless Transitioning from Google Reader to feedly - <AUTHOR> http://blog.feedly.com/2013/03/14/google-reader/

<comment><USER2> Thanks but I don't want an APP. I use 14+ different browsers a day. I touch other machines as well. Any machine I'm on, even if it's not mine, I want to access my feeds. I have ZERO interest in an app. Thank you.

<comment><USER3> if a web application does not count as an "app" for you, then I have good news: Feedly has a web application. A good one. <http://www.feedly.com>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wish there was a bare-bones version.. I'm using the android app right now and had several moments where I just paused not knowing what to do.. it's a very "swipe-happy" UI. I guess I'll get used to it eventually.

</comment><comment><USER5> Interesting.

But PBSALTPH.

Product blogs should always link to product homes.

<comment><USER6> I have no idea what that acronym is. Please de-obfuscate.

<comment><USER7> It's the third line.

> Product blogs should always link to product homes

<comment><USER6> Ah, too many letters and too little coffee on my part. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's a nice reader really, but i don't want to have to install an extension just because.

</comment><comment><USER9> I want a google reader replacement but this requires me to install something instead of just working.

<comment><USER10> If you're looking for an alternative to skim headlines please give Skim.Me (<http://skim.me>) a try (what a great name ha). We're a startup releasing another version soon to help you keep up at a glance.

<comment><USER11> I want a light weight feed reader with very few distractions. Upon visiting your page I see that you use webgl on your homepage and it appears that you only allow logins through facebook?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Import my tags and folders and you're good.

The RSS feed isn't the problem - it's the hundreds of hours I've put into curating content.

<comment><USER13> Search for: google reader api site:stackoverflow.com

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> <http://feedly.com> is the product home

<comment><USER14> not to be confused with <http://www.feedly.com/> which does not work :)

<comment><AUTHOR> :) It works for me, but it seems to be really slow right now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've just been trying to use feedly, but it's leaving a lot to be desired.

I don't want to have to search in order to add a site. I have the URL in my clipboard, I want to just add it to a particular group. The organise function (which on my vertical screen requires hover and if I click instead it closes it) seems to be designed around assuming that you don't have many groups or feeds in your groups. For example, I was trying to add a particular feed url to a particular group. It wouldn't let me because it was already in another group, but I couldn't see which group it was in (and why shouldn't I have a feed in more than one group?).

Also, what's with the huge featured thing? I don't care about what's 'featured', what I want is a timeline of full articles from my groups, without extra nonsense up at the top and without having to move between sites. I don't care about the feed it's from, what I care about is new content. I moved to reader from bloglines precisely because reader would let me have that and bloglines wouldn't, if feedly won't either then I simply can't use it.

</comment><comment><USER16> What I find especially odd is that they have built their API-compatible replacement for a Google property on another Google property.

Although App Engine is unlikely to see a shutdown in the way Reader has/will be, they're still at the whims of a company whose primary business isn't a development/app platform.

<comment><USER17> You can't put out blanket statements like that. Google is a huge company with many different divisions. You may as well just impose a ban on Google on not even use Google search. It's like saying "Don't use AWS because Amazon is a commerce site".

Also App Engine is a paid for product. When you decide to charge for a product things become 'real' because you can't just shut down a product people good money for and rely on for business. Of course in theory anything could be shut down but the likelihood greatly decreases once you start charging users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Smooth transition of my information. However, I find using it a bit atrocious in terms of trying to figure out what all those little custom icons mean. Sadly, I don't see myself getting used to it any time soon.

</comment><comment><USER19> Pardon the skepticism, but:

a) No clear revenue model

b) Built on the (thus far, still supported) Google App engine

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...

</comment><comment><USER20> Tried it in the past on android but was facing some issues with Greek text, tested it again now and the problem persists.

</comment><comment><USER21> Brilliant timing with this blog post - that should be the biggest take-way from this to the HN crowd.

</comment><comment><USER22> All I want is an equivalent "Next unread item" bookmarklet, anyone know of a service that has that?

</comment><comment><USER23> Does "transition" just mean the feeds will be copied? What about old content? Starred content?

</comment><comment><USER24> feels really slow, is it because of the traffic surge?

<comment><USER25> I guess it is. The name Normandy is hilarious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> feedly is loading forever.

</comment><comment><USER27> Windows Phone application please</comment>


Epic Systems workers are organizing - <AUTHOR> https://www.tonemadison.com/articles/epic-workers-arent-just-mad-theyre-organizing <comment><USER2> you shouldn't have to be mad or pushed beyond a certain emotional threshold to organize. organization shouldn't be a form of retaliation. this should always have been the status quo.

<comment><USER3> Please, no. I do not want software engineering to become unionized.

<comment><USER4> You'll be the first to suggest it when a tech slump hits - and it will be too late.

<comment><USER5> Or when they hit 50 and realize they can't get a new job in 2 days anymore

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Epic is the area's largest tech employer and their employees are a boon to the region.

Unfortunately the Company has and continues to treat their staff like expendable college grads

<comment><USER7> This was my experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Relevant thread from /r/cscareerquestions: [https://reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/i3n1cy/name_...](https://reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/i3n1cy/name_and_shame_epic_systems_for_unnecessarily/)

</comment><comment><USER9> I know this is going to be unpopular, but I just want to think about this companies perspective to add a bit of balance to this thread.

I know a lot of people on here feel like work from home is just as productive or even more so than working in the office, especially in the case of open office layouts, but it's just not universally true.

Some people are really good with responsibility, and some people really are not.

As an illustrative example, you might have 20% of workers working at 120% efficiency, 50% of workers working at 80% efficency, and 30% of workers working at 10% efficiency. This example comes out to about 67% productivity overall.

But you are still paying 100% of the salaries.

It would be nice if you could just tell the 30% who have terrible efficiency to come in while everyone else can work from home, but you can't. It immediately going to be seen as unfair. "Why does X get to work from home and I don't?!". Many people don't even have the self awareness to tell that they are terrible at working from home.

Another option would paying people for the amount of work they are actually delivering. Yeah, that isn't going to happen. I mean, for a start, it's hard to even quantify most of the time. A good manager knows who is delivering and who isn't, but you can't exactly point to number of bugs closed, or lines of code checked in to prove it.

And aside from anything else differing pay is a hard pill to swallow even without WFH involved. The guy earning 200k might be 4x as useful as the guy being paid 100k, or he may be no better or even worse!

My point is that there is no really satisfactory option here. I mean, you can make the argument "It's a pandemic, they should be happy to pay the same amount for 67% of the work" and sure, maybe that's just the way the cookie crumbles. I mean, lots of people are being totally forced out of business due to this pandemic so it's better situation than those guys I guess?

But you can at least understand that it's a sucky position to be in.

<comment><USER10> Paying employees according to the true value of their labor is tempting at first, but you better be careful-- Apply the principle too consistently and the C-suite gets a huge pay cut.

<comment><USER11> yeah, imagine having to have to wear a suit all day, a horror that only a 8 figure salary can compensate for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > It's hard (actually, it's impossible) to retain our culture when we're > working from our homes

First it was sacrifice for the economy, now it's for the company culture!

</comment><comment><USER13> I live in Wisconsin and I applied to work there twice after finishing bachelor's degree about 8 years ago. Both times I was rejected. I was thinking by working at Epic I would be solving real-world problem and helping humanity so I was excited. The way I was treated says a lot about their culture and how much they value their employees. They are a terrible company inside and outside.

<comment><USER14> How were you treated?

<comment><USER13> Took the online assessment twice. It takes 2 hours to complete it. Never received any phone call or email or anything saying that my application was denied or accepted.

<comment><USER14> I'm glad it wasn't worse. It seems like employers ghosting candidates has become a norm to the extent that I know if I apply for 5 or 10 jobs, I'll be ghosted at least a couple of times. It's stupidly unprofessional -- IMO, if a human looks at your application, you should get a personalized email saying whether or not they intend to move forward; and, if no human looks at the application, the candidate should get at least an automated email explaining why, or a timeframe in which a human should be able to get around to looking at it.

This ain't rocket science. Sure, individual humans who are part of the process can make mistakes sometimes, but when it's coming from a group that says "we can't hire enough people! skills shortage!", I have very little sympathy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> For those interested, Google's Madison office has some openings for software and hardware engineers. Our office is downtown in the same building as The Sylvee, and Google has publicly announced that voluntary WFH has been extended through June 2021 to allow employees the confidence to commit to personal arrangements until then.

</comment><comment><USER16> Recruiters for remote-working companies: for your attention!

</comment><comment><USER17> This is about Epic Systems (healthcare software) and not about Epic Games.

<comment><USER18> Funny that there's two well known software companies that have disgruntled software developers. The title is believable for either

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Oh, not Epic Games.</comment>


Ask HN: Users start sharing copyrighted files in your app, Legal Advice? - <AUTHOR> Let's say you create a chat app that has groups, and people start sharing links to copyrighted materials.
How can you avoid that your app is banned from the Apple and Google stores ?
Is there a standard copyright notice mechanism ?
Would be enough taking down links that receive a notice ?
Would that exime you from any legal responsibility ? <comment><USER2> Legal responsibility... Fines and such, regardless, if the EU leadership has their way...

And as with any legal situation, talk to a lawyer, it's worth the money.</comment>


Apple's painfully unstable live stream was caused by bad JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://www.cultofmac.com/295132/apples-pitful-attempt-live-blogging-crashed-event-video-feed/

<comment><USER2> There was a great blog post diving into the JSON/caching issues specifically: [http://perf.fail/post/97144331419/learning-from-apples- lives...](http://perf.fail/post/97144331419/learning-from-apples-livestream- perf-fiasco)

To clarify, clients were polling every 10 seconds for an _entire_ JSON file containing all the tweets at the bottom, instead of just requesting new tweets in the last 10 seconds and appending them. They also set a 10 second TTL on images, which seems... odd. They should be static.</comment>


#cphftw is born - Karstend-c http://oresundstartups.com/cphftw-born/

<comment><AUTHOR> "ftw - for the women/for the weed" \- you're not off to a great start in terms of adopting the language of inclusion.</comment>


Show HN: Geometric screensaver for OS X - <AUTHOR> http://www.saver.is

<comment><AUTHOR> Kinda hard to describe but Saver Screensson creates stylish, unique patterns on your display by stacking vector stencils. Screensson contains 340 individual images and 19 predefined color palettes, generating countless multilayered compositions.

</comment><comment><USER2> I love the designs. What was the development process like?</comment>


"If you run a hosting company... and want to help the industry, support Geary" - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvwPHhAk4_c&feature=youtu.be

<comment><AUTHOR> Support Geary: <http://igg.me/at/geary>

Matthew's Open Letter: <http://blog.bytemark.co.uk/2013/04/17/geary></comment>


When Treasure Hunting is the Family Business - <AUTHOR> http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/when-treasure-hunting-is-the-family-business <comment><USER2> friends of me run another father-son treasure hunting business over at [http://www.oceanexplorer.se/](http://www.oceanexplorer.se/)</comment>


Crowdsourced domain recommendations - <AUTHOR> http://dockname.com

<comment><USER2> how is it different (other than using twitter for authentication/communication and upvoting system) than a request forum at [https://www.namepros.com/](https://www.namepros.com/) or [http://www.dnforum.com/forums/domains-websites- wanted.16/](http://www.dnforum.com/forums/domains-websites-wanted.16/) ?

I had some domain-related ideas, we should talk

<comment><AUTHOR> Forum can be an overkill, this is focused domain request/proposal/upvote system. I'm @mightyalex on twitter, drop me a message anytime.</comment></comment>


The strength of a monopoly can be guessed at by calling customer support - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.harvard.edu/bugeja/2018/09/16/the-strength-of-a-monopoly-can-be-guessed-at-by-the-quality-of-its-customer-support/ <comment><USER2> The US govt has some of the worst support I've ever witnessed in my entire life.

1\. I was audit by the IRS this year and so far I've logged about 6 hours of waiting on hold over ~15 individual call attempts of which I was never able to speak to someone beyond their initial call center.

Then I sent in the requested receipts as per their instructions. They told me the receipts -they- requested weren't proof enough, so I had to provide additional paperwork.

This has been an ongoing process for around 8 months and it's still not revolved. They haven't contacted me in about a month since the date they told me my case would be reviewed, so who knows what happened. Given they haven't asked me anything else or sent me a notice or bill warning, I'm guessing they finally figured out I wasn't lying all along.

2\. I also once got denied a new social security card because I had an expired driver's license and no credit card. I brought a ton of documentation as per their website and had enough proof of ID. The lady at the desk told me "I'm sorry, I can't issue your request" so I showed her their own website with the proper forms of ID and she just repeated the same phrase. I left the place and mailed everything in along with a letter and my card was renewed but it took over 3 weeks.

3\. After waiting 2.5 hours on hold for health insurance I finally got a person who told me they can't handle my request (even though this was the number listed on their website), so they forwarded me to a new number, and then I waited on hold for another hour, and then as soon as I got connected, they asked for a million pieces of information from me and hung up before processing anything. It was like 4 hours of a total waste of time and then I got penalized thousands of dollars in the end for not having insurance.

The worst part about this monopoly is we pay a ton of money towards taxes but get treated so poorly.

I once witnessed some little girl twist her ankle on a severely broken side walk. It took the town 3 years before they finally decided to fix it. It also took them 3 months to complete the job which was to redo about 20 feet of side walk.

<comment><USER3> Blame congress for the IRS - certain political elements would like to eliminate the IRS - they have this idea, that if we starve it, people will hate it so much we can make it go away.

Nevermind the fact that the IRS wont go away till there isnt an income tax anymore.

<comment><USER4> Taxes could also be a lot easier if Congress didn't buy into lobbying from Intuit and other tax preparers to _keep taxes complicated_ so individuals had to figure out their own taxes and spend inordinate amounts of time and effort determining out how to properly fill out every form.

<comment><USER5> That's a totally different issue from Congress failing to properly fund the IRS, a profit centre! It's one of the frew areas of government that spending money on makes money.

<comment><USER6> > It's one of the frew areas of government that spending money on makes money.

In a well run government, _everything_ the government does should result in a benefit to the civilization and by it, the government. For example, adequately maintaining roads or other public infrastructure will save money on expensive urgent restauration works (e.g. when a water main explodes or a bridge collapses), as well as promote company growth (e.g. by building real, fast internet connectivity via local government owned utilities, thus enabling modern companies to work) which causes tax income to rise.

Even stuff that does not seem to be profitable at all in the long run makes profits. Take environment protection as an example: preventing or cleaning up pollution saves cost in the medical system (and even if it's a mess like in the US where most of it is privatized, the "win" is more worker productivity because they're not ill as much as before and can work more - or criminality decreases like w/ lead exposure), and trying to prevent climate change due to rising temperature will prove worth the money when the government saves money that would be spent on relocating people on the coasts.

<comment><USER7> Someone else put it perfectly when they said when cities decide each year whether to pay into pensions or fix failing infrastructure, they go with the option that won't sue them.

Ever wonder why we have the grant system we do?

<comment><USER6> > they go with the option that won't sue them.

Well, if your infrastructure explodes like that bridge in Italy, then the survivors will sue... it's gambling, just with lives at stake.

Governments (worldwide) should be forced to a different accounting model - where maintenance for everything they build (infrastructure) or buy (IT software!) over the lifetime has to be budgeted for. No more expensive nutjobs like Olympic Games which will be unmaintainable after the single use...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I saw harvard.edu and was optimistic that this was going to be a real study. Instead it was just "haha, IRS support sucks, monopolies are bad." I've called the IRS support line multiple times for fairly non-trivial problems and had nothing but good experiences.

<comment><USER9> Without fail it was a minimum of one hour of wait time every time I called which isn't good for me. How about you?

<comment><USER10> I've got some sympathy for the IRS (in this limited case) -- their budget is cut by small-government crusaders, thus reducing service, angering taxpayers and thus aligning public sentiment against the IRS. Same political ideology also works to make the tax code more complicated, also achieving the same objective.

But then they're prevented from simplifying - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17751383](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17751383)

<comment><USER11> Large government ideology doesn't help the tax code either. Complex tax codes are a result of special tax breaks for any purpose.

<comment><USER12> Poor service though is more about lack of resources than the complexity of the tax code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I had to call the IRS recently and had a pretty good experience. The lady was super helpful and provided me with some resources I didn't know about before.

<comment><USER14> This doesn't transfer to Canada. Calling the CRA is a chore. The agents are ill trained and often give incorrect information.

[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cra-blocks- cal...](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cra-blocks-calls-often- gives-taxpayers-wrong-information-auditor-says/article37036667/)

<comment><USER15> I've had good experience calling the business-side part of CRA, though I think they're small enough that they're a different beast from the department that has to handle _all_ generic questions/complaints from consumers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Totally different experience with the IRS. My one phone call with them was an excellent experience. I got someone much much more knowledgeable than me who quickly and clearly walked me through what I needed. My colleague has had a similar experience.

<comment><USER17> Had a family member who was audited by the IRS every year for years. Each time IRS received a tax lesson. Only stopped when family member got US Representative and both Senators to lean on the IRS.

<comment><USER18> It's funny how supposedly "random" computer systems can somehow target an individual.

I had an issue with a sheriff's deputy pulling my wife over on her way home from work twice a week for a month. Same deputy each time, and unfortunately my wife couldn't take another route. The deputy would only say she looked suspicious and then ask her personal questions.

I mentioned it to my boss, who was formerly an important person in the region, and he made a phone call. My wife never saw the deputy again.

In what I can only assume was retaliation, I suddenly got called for jury duty. Every other week. After the sixth notice, I mentioned it to my boss. He made a phone call, and put me on a list of people who should never be pulled for jury duty (for celebrities, etc...) in that county.

We moved to another state a few months later.

Computers sometimes seem to make the system easier to corrupt, rather than keep it from being corrupt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is why SaaS companies created Customer Success. They need to win your business year over year. Once they realize you can't switch, the audits and price hikes begin, and the support ends.

</comment><comment><USER20> Any New Zealander who is with one of our two dominant internet/phone providers (Spark and Vodafone NZ) has experienced this well - long waits to get someone in the Phillipines who can't actually help you, and doesn't quite understand what they're doing.

They only really compete for new customers, so if you ever ring them to sign up, well, boy howdy that's a whole other experience. Calls answered immediately by knowledgeable people.

Duopolies - for when you like pretending you have a competitive market.

<comment> barrow-rider Also true for Canada, and when I lived in Australia.

Hell, when I was in the Oz I was a PM for Telstra working on getting better call center infrastructure setup for offshore calls...

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Does this explain the DMV? The DA's office has a government monopoly as well.

I'm also reminded of what it was like to hire a taxi in the days before Uber and Lyft.

<comment><USER22> The DMV is also an expense center which is visited infrequently. There is little pressure to make it a campaign issue to run on. While a pain in the ass it isn't a pressing issue unless an area is completely un(der)served.

<comment><USER23> Indiana did such a thing, though. These things actually make folks hate goverment a bit less, I think.

[https://www.sagamoreinstitute.org/case-study-in-culture- chan...](https://www.sagamoreinstitute.org/case-study-in-culture-change-how- reforming-the-bureau-of-motor-vehicles-can-change-a-state)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> i guess this explains why Google doesn't even have customer service

</comment><comment><USER25> Could this assessment be extended to "companies can be guessed to be large by calling customer support"? I can think of few examples of large companies, monopolies or not, having good phone customer support; many large companies outsource their call centers, which could contribute. This method of assessing "monopolies" will give many false positives if the answer to my question is yes.

</comment><comment><USER26> A rather odd one is the Swedish tax authority, they generally have good to excellent support within the legal framework they have to work with. They are better than almost any company I've had to deal with, and usually whomever you get to talk to either know what they are talking about, or can refer you to someone who can. There are probably people with negative experiences too, but I've yet to hear a single horror story about their _service_!

As with any tax authority, you shouldn't try to keep them from their coin, but it seems like somewhere along the way they figured out that they didn't get more money if they had shitty service, but rather the other way around. It's probably also easier, and cheaper to retain people if not everyone hate your guts simply because you work there.

</comment><comment><USER27> The best customer support I've received is from DigiKey - they have millions of components you can order in quantity 1, and if they make a mistake they'll overnight you a replacement at their expense, basically no questions asked.

<comment><USER28> Do you use them as replacements or do you build something with the stuff they sell?

<comment><USER27> I took up EE projects as a hobby! I should write some of them up, but I do some PCB layout / design and embedded systems work on my own time. Most recent was our house door opener which is spliced into the buzzer wires. I source all my components from Digikey.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Amazon's customer service is still very good to excellent especially considering the volume they handle and the loss they take on return frauds. It's still no Costco or Nordstrom but Amazon is the gold standard for online retail experience.

<comment><USER30> In the last year Amazon stopped price matching themselves (used to be within the last 30 days). Now even if the item is still in the mail they require you to ship it back at your cost and re-order at the lower price.

They've also modified their Wish List/Gift List to remove the "Buying this elsewhere" button. Now you have to purchase from Amazon.com or ruin the surprise if using a friend's Wish List. This isn't reflected in Amazon's help site[0] and their customer service spent three weeks investigating this only to tell me they're "Constantly trying to improve the site"(???).

My point is, that Amazon's CS is slipping. It used to be fantastic, now it is fine, but definitely getting less friendly in terms of policy even if the agents themselves are still pleasant. They're more or less ruined their own Wish Lists.

[0] [https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=3058771)

<comment><USER29> Those are all fair points. Their Prime program used to be ridiculously generous in earlier days. However, I have a very very hard time thinking of someone, big or small, who does it better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Today's fast way to reach customer support is to make a post on Twitter

<comment><USER32> Social media support might be a better option. I see a lot of monopolies blatantly ignore masses of complaints on their Facebook page.

I can't imagine anything worse for PR. Post a "Happy New Year" picture and have 20 people mob that post complaining about terrible service and how they're unable to reach customer service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> This article makes good argument. I want to note, though, that Comcast support has done a 180 for several calls I made.

I receive their call back in seconds. I usually talk to someone in India whose both highly enthusiastic about hearing from me and apologetic about the circumstances. If anything, they're _too_ nice since it comes off as unbelievable. They've credited my bill without me asking maybe twice. When I need a tech, they're usually backed up a bit but bump me into next day somehow. Ive always suspected that was a gimmick.

That's the gist of it. They know what they're doing, really polite, better connection quality than past maybe, and super helpful. I think Comcast is both trying to improve its image for leverage in public debates and/or using better support to improve retention. Im loving it either way. Plus, the remote reboot feature on the mobile app. Saves time and trips.

<comment><USER34> I suspect there are enough markets where Comcast is not a monopoly as to affect their business. I've been switching between them and Verizon FiOS to get promotional rates. I used to prefer FiOS customer service, but in the past few years, that has reversed. Additionally, when I switch away from Comcast, they credit me a pro-rated billing period. But Verizon just kept the change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Sometimes the best approach is to do everything by registered mail, with a return confirmation.

You keep copies of everything included in each mailing, that way if it reaches court you hand everything over and your documentation does the talking.

I have found as soon as i take this approach it gets sorted straight away and is never a problem as they realise that they dont have a leg to stand on.

In another case a business always had their used cheques returned to them once processed by the bank.

When the tax office repeatedly stated a payment had not been made.. their accountant said over the phone to the tax office "thats funny because i am holding their processed check returned to them with the tax offices recieved stamp on it.." it was then magically immediately fixed.

I think its because of people not wanting to do their job within their department so they handball it when ever possible, on the smallest excuse.

<comment><USER36> I've been once told about how mail was handled by a certain Israeli government office.

The mail was sorted into two piles, registered and unregistered. The unregistered was thrown in the trash.

Always use registered mail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Last winter i faced a non-standard situation with Microsoft Office subscription. I moved to another country and had no active CC from the original country working anymore - realized only when my Office stopped working - and had no way to switch country or payment method before paying my arrears - which i counldn't do because of not having the damn payment method...

Surprisingly, MS support was quick and absolutely helpful in resolving this for me - took no more than 15 minutes - and they ended up simply waving my arrears so i never paid that $10 - and let me enter new payment method.

</comment><comment><USER38> Complete inverse of my experience. HMRC (the British IRS) are exceptionally good over the phone. As indeed were the divorce courts. Maybe the British government see the British jurisdiction as optional for their highest ticket clients :-P

The worst offenders in the UK have been cell-service providers, where the competition is fierce, and companies like Sports Direct, where the margins are tiny because the competition is so fierce. Good luck with low-cost airlines too, where the Heathrow-monopoly-abusing (according to VS) British Airways are also great on the phone.

</comment><comment><USER39> I have this issue with my student loans. They let it sit for weeks 'in processing' while I accrue interest on it. What am I applying for? IBR. Income based repayment because I'm effectively poor. It just sucks seeing the balance grow and grow and have my credit wrecked, just because they let my paperwork sit in processing. I turn around and re-submit stuff when they ask within a day. For them it's 2-4 weeks between replies. JFC.

</comment><comment><USER40> I recently had to call the Dutch tax service help line Belastingtelephone and the experience was rather pleasant. You have to wait 15-30 minutes sometimes, but you do get connected to someone who really can help you. I had to fill in a number of rather obscure forms recently and I called them 3 times in total. Each time I had my questions resolved with about 30 minutes.

<comment><USER41> Their slogan is "we can't make it more enjoyable, but we can make it easier" ("Leuker kunnen we het niet maken, wel makkelijk"). I haven't yet have to file taxes in any other country but when I compare my experiences to those of others on HN I suppose they're doing okay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I got audited by the IRS... I had accidentally forgotten to file one of the many 1099 forms I had received that year. The agent handling the audit easily had some of the best customer service I've ever experienced and I was able to get the problem resolved.

</comment><comment><USER43> For those of you who work in a huge bureaucracy: does your bureaucracy decree that you must rely on some other internal team for a particular service? what level of "customer" support does this service provide?

<comment><USER23> I worked at a phone company years ago. It was around the time when GTE became Verizon (it has been a while).

The entire system was segmented. I was in the "disconnect department" \- folks late on their bill and about to be disconnected or newly disconnected (this was for landlines).

We literally could not do much more than that. We did not have any access to billing tools and could not fix those. We could not put in a repair ticket at all. We could not see cellular service. Basically, if it wasn't a disconnection reconnection or payment plan we couldn't help you.

Some of this was a knowlege thing: National call centers needing to learn the ins and out of different state laws (some states public utility commissions were stricter and more powerful than others). Some of this was built in: We literally didn't have access to these things. I'm sure some of it was because training on all of the things wasn't cost effective. There were also things we simply weren't allowed to do without being a supervisor (Which was often an experienced rep working a hotline for a few hours).

It does provide horrible customer service in many cases, especially if there is a wait time to another department. It would make it slightly easier if you could jump to the start of the other department's queue, but that wasn't the case. ON the other hand, many states had laws about how quickly you were supposed to answer the phones and queue jumping probably affected that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is that a very good heuristic? Some markets aren't supported in the first place either because of assumptions of knowledge (including being too simple to mess up) or commoditized enough that it is negligible.

</comment><comment><USER44> Again an abuse of the word monopoly. I wish authors could grasp the difference between having a single actor in a market and one that is dominant among many others. This is absolutely not the same thing.

</comment><comment><USER45> What counts as a monopoly? What about calling Apple?

<comment><USER29> DoJ has a good review.

[https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly- single-...](https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm- conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act)

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> The odd thing is, call the Inland Revenue helpline in the UK about your tax and I've always found them extraordinarily helpful.

<comment><USER47> Most of my interaction with HMRC is online now, this is far more effective for both sides.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Indeed. Monopoly doesn't care about quality and support. Its users have no choice.

</comment><comment><USER49> If the aliens typed "call amazon" into google, they'd get a human almost instantly. It's not rocket science, although aliens would be good at that too i guess.</comment>