Parler CEO John Matze, family forced into hiding over death threats(foxnews.com)
foxnews.com
Parler CEO John Matze, family forced into hiding over death threats
https://www.foxnews.com/media/parler-ceo-john-matze-family-hiding-deaths-threats
36 comments
Not only him, but all of the free speech advocates have this incongruity.
You may notice that in this thread there isn't the usual volume of free speechers "falling over themselves" to comment. All of the boring absolute free speech comments we had to endure when violent speech was being removed from Facebook/Twitter and now they are dead silent when it involves Parler.
Kind of illustrates a politically held position and not a rationally held one.
You may notice that in this thread there isn't the usual volume of free speechers "falling over themselves" to comment. All of the boring absolute free speech comments we had to endure when violent speech was being removed from Facebook/Twitter and now they are dead silent when it involves Parler.
Kind of illustrates a politically held position and not a rationally held one.
My understanding is that Parler's TOS banned things like threats of violence. Sadly I can't find a mirror of their User Agreement right now. :(
Here was their terms of service [1], as of 2021-01-09, converted from PDF to text.
Here was their community guidelines [2], also as of 2021-01-09, converted from PDF to text.
They also had an Elaboration-on-Guidelines.pdf. I tried to do that one, but pastebin.com said it contained offensive material and could only be made private, but the option to make private pastes was greyed out. I assume that is because I do not have an account.
My PDF of that, grabbed on 2021-01-10, looks like it identical to the one Miner49er posted.
[1] https://pastebin.com/FTFMh4ad
[2] https://pastebin.com/a1mCqq6b
Here was their community guidelines [2], also as of 2021-01-09, converted from PDF to text.
They also had an Elaboration-on-Guidelines.pdf. I tried to do that one, but pastebin.com said it contained offensive material and could only be made private, but the option to make private pastes was greyed out. I assume that is because I do not have an account.
My PDF of that, grabbed on 2021-01-10, looks like it identical to the one Miner49er posted.
[1] https://pastebin.com/FTFMh4ad
[2] https://pastebin.com/a1mCqq6b
Here's their guidelines. However, I'm not sure these were the final rule. Matze said other rules at various points (like no porn, banning antifa users, etc) and also at one point claimed anything legal goes, so it's hard to say what ended up being enforced.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rikfE6...
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rikfE6...
so what, the TOS don't mean anything unless you make an effort to enforce them
Not right. People should be able to express themselves without fear of violence, no matter what they say, we all deserve this right.
Hilarious. Death threats were cool with him when it was directed at others, now he is whining about when the tables get turned on him.
If there are people out there making death threats against you, do you feel safer just because some moderator is deleting them?
Yes, actually.
People who actually intend to harm you don't tell you about it, especially not in public. They just do it.
Threats in public are designed to make you feel fear. Even if you know that the threat is empty, it's difficult to just put it out of your mind. As is the case here: Matze is almost certainly in no danger. But there is still a chance, so he hides from it.
In a better world, we'd prosecute everybody making violent threats, and that would be the end of it. In practice, practically none of these threats ever turn into violence, and law enforcement organizations generally ignore them. They'd be overwhelmed if they didn't.
In this world, having the death threats removed does, in fact, make me feel safer -- because the threat itself is the primary harm. It's often possible to remove the threats before I see them, by looking closer at the users who make them. Even if they can't remove it before I see it, leaving it up informs other users that this is allowed.
As I said, I'd much rather have the FBI take death threats seriously. But since they won't, removing them (and preventing users from making more) is better than leaving it there.
People who actually intend to harm you don't tell you about it, especially not in public. They just do it.
Threats in public are designed to make you feel fear. Even if you know that the threat is empty, it's difficult to just put it out of your mind. As is the case here: Matze is almost certainly in no danger. But there is still a chance, so he hides from it.
In a better world, we'd prosecute everybody making violent threats, and that would be the end of it. In practice, practically none of these threats ever turn into violence, and law enforcement organizations generally ignore them. They'd be overwhelmed if they didn't.
In this world, having the death threats removed does, in fact, make me feel safer -- because the threat itself is the primary harm. It's often possible to remove the threats before I see them, by looking closer at the users who make them. Even if they can't remove it before I see it, leaving it up informs other users that this is allowed.
As I said, I'd much rather have the FBI take death threats seriously. But since they won't, removing them (and preventing users from making more) is better than leaving it there.
> Threats in public are designed to make you feel fear. Even if you know that the threat is empty, it's difficult to just put it out of your mind.
Regardless of the intentions of the one making the threat, if the threatened person knew with 100% certainty there was no real danger, then they would not feel fear. For example, if we receive an anonymous threat and then we learn that the person who made it was a 3rd grader on another continent. If we feel fear after receiving some seemingly empty threat, then it's because at least subconsciously we believe there is now some non-zero chance of facing danger.
My point was that it's not hypocritical for him to be upset about receiving online threats. It's the fact that people are making threats that's scary, not whether or not moderators are removing them.
Regardless of the intentions of the one making the threat, if the threatened person knew with 100% certainty there was no real danger, then they would not feel fear. For example, if we receive an anonymous threat and then we learn that the person who made it was a 3rd grader on another continent. If we feel fear after receiving some seemingly empty threat, then it's because at least subconsciously we believe there is now some non-zero chance of facing danger.
My point was that it's not hypocritical for him to be upset about receiving online threats. It's the fact that people are making threats that's scary, not whether or not moderators are removing them.
Hilarious that someone's family is threatened?
[deleted]
this.
[deleted]
A very worrying trend. Dangerous world to be managing a social network in right now. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
A friend had local dating / forums site in 2000s, was getting various threats from users for all kinds of reasons
Let's leave this to experts to figure out the legal framework for similar cases in the future.
I personally think it was wrong. Parler ban is just the type of stuff that countries like China or Iran do and we condemn or even sanction them for it.
What happened, and is happening, didn't start over the night and the lack of moderation on Parler wasn't the root cause.
We should hold those resourceful politicians with their megaphones accountable for what they advocate and how they exploit people on social media.
I personally think it was wrong. Parler ban is just the type of stuff that countries like China or Iran do and we condemn or even sanction them for it.
What happened, and is happening, didn't start over the night and the lack of moderation on Parler wasn't the root cause.
We should hold those resourceful politicians with their megaphones accountable for what they advocate and how they exploit people on social media.
Let me be super clear: if real, that’s awful, inexcusable, and indefensible.
But it also seems kind of inevitable:
1. Create an environment where seriously unstable conspiracy theorists hang out.
2. Get hacked so that the people from #1 see the personal information you collected about them, including their government IDs, leaked to the public.
3. Act shocked when the people from #1 decide that you must be cooperating with the “deep state” to oppress them, and therefore you’re the enemy.
Death threats seem like the logical outcome of #1. And again, that’s not OK. No one deserves to live in fear. However, it seems highly personally risky to get involved with the kind of folks who’d flock to an app that promises zero moderation. Lots of normal, decent people might want to use Parler for all sorts of normal, decent reasons so please don’t interpret that as me saying “Parler users are terrorists” because that’s not at all what I think. But you if asked me where scary people were likely to hang out, that would be on my short list.
But it also seems kind of inevitable:
1. Create an environment where seriously unstable conspiracy theorists hang out.
2. Get hacked so that the people from #1 see the personal information you collected about them, including their government IDs, leaked to the public.
3. Act shocked when the people from #1 decide that you must be cooperating with the “deep state” to oppress them, and therefore you’re the enemy.
Death threats seem like the logical outcome of #1. And again, that’s not OK. No one deserves to live in fear. However, it seems highly personally risky to get involved with the kind of folks who’d flock to an app that promises zero moderation. Lots of normal, decent people might want to use Parler for all sorts of normal, decent reasons so please don’t interpret that as me saying “Parler users are terrorists” because that’s not at all what I think. But you if asked me where scary people were likely to hang out, that would be on my short list.
Is it the people who were using Parler that made the death threats, or the people who don't like that people were using Parler?
I honestly don't know, but I personally assumed the death threats came from people who simply didn't like that Parler existed in the first place.
I honestly don't know, but I personally assumed the death threats came from people who simply didn't like that Parler existed in the first place.
It’s a little hard to tell who’s threatening him. He mentions the group “UGNazi”, but they’re a hacking group whose violence track record seems to be that one of the members killed his girlfriend, and while that’s awful doesn’t seem like it makes them a physical danger to others.
While searching for more sources, I noticed that most of the papers reporting this story are either right-leaning (Fox, Epoch Times, etc.) or tabloids (Daily Mail). If there’s a report from someone more authoritative like AP, I haven’t seen it yet.
While searching for more sources, I noticed that most of the papers reporting this story are either right-leaning (Fox, Epoch Times, etc.) or tabloids (Daily Mail). If there’s a report from someone more authoritative like AP, I haven’t seen it yet.
This is not okay. Anyone care to predict where this is gonna go from here?
Either Albuquerque or Svlabard. Or maybe Patagonia.
I guess when you foster a community of domestic terrorists and then leak all of their data, they might end up turning on you.
What do Facebook and Twitter have to do with this?
The final spate of complaints about Parler before Apple and Amazon kicked them off the internet (loosely speaking) included the frequent presence of Parler posts with death threats (against Pence, Pelosi, etc)
As someone in the pro-censorship camp (private censorship, at any rate) I find it exasperating that Matze sees no parallel.
As someone in the pro-censorship camp (private censorship, at any rate) I find it exasperating that Matze sees no parallel.
Sadly it wasn't just Parler. Twitter had had a trending topic for a few hours on that day of "Hang Mike Pence".
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/10/hang-mike-pe...
As well, it is being argument that the tech companies are working at the governments behest in their censoring. See: https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/10/hang-mike-pe...
As well, it is being argument that the tech companies are working at the governments behest in their censoring. See: https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-...
The article said it trended on Saturday. It trended because people talked about the insurrectionists chanting it. And Twitter blocked it within hours.
> As someone in the pro-censorship camp (private censorship, at any rate) I find it exasperating that Matze sees no parallel.
Their "reasoning" nowadays seems to consist of self-serving double standards, false equivalencies, trolling, and conspiracy theories. It's exasperating, but to be expected.
Their "reasoning" nowadays seems to consist of self-serving double standards, false equivalencies, trolling, and conspiracy theories. It's exasperating, but to be expected.
[deleted]
Peanuts compared to the violence threatened on the right. And he encourages death threats on his platform, so he shouldn't be surprised.
Was it right wingers engaging in the "mostly peaceful protests" that led to dozens of deaths and many more injuries, over a billion in property damage, and lasted for 6+ months?
Was it right wingers who said if they see their political enemies "in a restaurant, in a Department Store, in a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd! You push back on them! You tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere!”
Or
"you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere!"
Or for
"unrest on the streets”
Or said that the rioting/looting/arson was
"not gonna stop before election day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after election day. They’re not gonna let up and they should not.”
Or
“I just don’t even know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country. And maybe there will be"
Or simply call their political opposition "Nazis" and then, separately, explain violence against Nazi's is justified?
Hint: the answer is no.
Was it right wingers who said if they see their political enemies "in a restaurant, in a Department Store, in a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd! You push back on them! You tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere!”
Or
"you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere!"
Or for
"unrest on the streets”
Or said that the rioting/looting/arson was
"not gonna stop before election day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after election day. They’re not gonna let up and they should not.”
Or
“I just don’t even know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country. And maybe there will be"
Or simply call their political opposition "Nazis" and then, separately, explain violence against Nazi's is justified?
Hint: the answer is no.
> Was it right wingers engaging in the "mostly peaceful protests" that led to dozens of deaths and many more injuries, over a billion in property damage, and lasted for 6+ months?
It was in many cases right-wingers (in some cases, IIRC, specifically associated with and motivated by the Boogaloo movement) committing violent acts concurrent with the actually-peaceful protests. They weren't actually participating with the protests, though.
It was in many cases right-wingers (in some cases, IIRC, specifically associated with and motivated by the Boogaloo movement) committing violent acts concurrent with the actually-peaceful protests. They weren't actually participating with the protests, though.
Ah, interesting. Whatever could have prompted the boogaloo boys to burn down those buildings, smash those banks and Starbucks, and Rob those Foot Lockers?
this
- "free speech" meaning everything should be published on wildly accessible platforms, including death threats and organizing attacks against individuals.
- "personal privacy" where no one knows his address, largely so that he can avoid death threats and stop folks from organizing attacks.