Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/technology/apple-google-parler.html
3,940 comments
I'm just going to come out and say something that I've had a hard self reflective time coming to the conclusion of. I don't believe in free speech without limits.
I have strongly felt that the actions taken by these companies is morally and ethically the right thing to do, for any business and that is inconsistent with believing in true free speech. My line for free speech seems to lie in speech that incites violence or speech that discriminates against people for immutable characteristics of their person, both of which I know Parler harbors in abundance. I think there are simply some ideas that are too repugnant to not rebuke.
That said I don't like how centralized we've become on these existing platforms either. Monopoly on communication means it's too easy to let that window slide on what is acceptable speech to limit.
I have strongly felt that the actions taken by these companies is morally and ethically the right thing to do, for any business and that is inconsistent with believing in true free speech. My line for free speech seems to lie in speech that incites violence or speech that discriminates against people for immutable characteristics of their person, both of which I know Parler harbors in abundance. I think there are simply some ideas that are too repugnant to not rebuke.
That said I don't like how centralized we've become on these existing platforms either. Monopoly on communication means it's too easy to let that window slide on what is acceptable speech to limit.
I have not yet concluded whether I believe in free speech without limits, but I can at least say with confidence the following:
- Freedom of speech is of extremely high importance for any free society and should not be taken for granted
- Removing it in any capacity should be done with extreme care and free of any bias one way or another, with a lot of thought put into any future consequences
- Speech without a platform isn't speech at all
- Private companies' interest should have little, if any, control over the ability of the public to speak
- Just because a private company is legally allowed to do something, doesn't mean they should
- The marketability of speech (for financially or politically) should have no bearing on whether it's allowed or good
I don't know if all of this is being upheld. I think a lot of interests are at play here. I have no easy answers or even recommendations other than that everyone think about what objective barometers they really think makes speech allowable or not.
(Edit: list rendered real bad)
- Freedom of speech is of extremely high importance for any free society and should not be taken for granted
- Removing it in any capacity should be done with extreme care and free of any bias one way or another, with a lot of thought put into any future consequences
- Speech without a platform isn't speech at all
- Private companies' interest should have little, if any, control over the ability of the public to speak
- Just because a private company is legally allowed to do something, doesn't mean they should
- The marketability of speech (for financially or politically) should have no bearing on whether it's allowed or good
I don't know if all of this is being upheld. I think a lot of interests are at play here. I have no easy answers or even recommendations other than that everyone think about what objective barometers they really think makes speech allowable or not.
(Edit: list rendered real bad)
Not an American but here's my two cents: I know it's about the event happened few days ago, but based on what I've learned on the other side of the Earth during these years, I think overall, Censorship in any shape or form, when encouraged, will eventually develop itself to become "Government Enforced". I guess we all know how that goes.
I know the problem is complex, but I think the solution to the problem was based on basic human impulses (And very American if I'd say so myself. Sorry), because simply deplatform the app will not actually convince it's users to leave it, it does not educate those people about what's right and wrong, and it opened a huge playground for the conspiracy theorist to play around.
All around, I think deplatforming is a bad solution to this problem.
EDIT: Clarify: I'm not here to support Parler (not even a bit), and I understand the deplatforming was for the immediate issue. However, I hope those who involved in the decision making could look for a better solution that would convince people to claim down and be rational. That's all.
I know the problem is complex, but I think the solution to the problem was based on basic human impulses (And very American if I'd say so myself. Sorry), because simply deplatform the app will not actually convince it's users to leave it, it does not educate those people about what's right and wrong, and it opened a huge playground for the conspiracy theorist to play around.
All around, I think deplatforming is a bad solution to this problem.
EDIT: Clarify: I'm not here to support Parler (not even a bit), and I understand the deplatforming was for the immediate issue. However, I hope those who involved in the decision making could look for a better solution that would convince people to claim down and be rational. That's all.
I think deplatforming is exactly what we need here: neonazi and white supremacists are people who are reliant on easy to use discourse-amplifying platforms.
The more you make it difficult for them to gather virtually, the more you’re breaking the spell that keeps them together.
Before social media, physical neonazi or white supremacy chapter had A LOT of work to do to radicalize people, and were very easy to police and keep under control. With online-based organizational tools, radicalization became easier and harder to patrol.
Do you think a random Arkansas soccer mom would have ever joined anything as crazy as Q-anon conspiracy, if she had to attend Q-anon chapter in person instead of participating in an online forum while doing the laundry?
There's a contradiction in your argument. On one hand, you claim these platforms "amplify" hate speech, and on the other hand, you want to push them to other platforms.
...but it is exactly that isolation that create the bubble induced amplification of hate-speech.
If everyone was forced to exist on the same platform (as a though experiment) then hate-speech would have to co-exist with rational thinkers and their hateful ideas might not propagate much.
...but the moment you ban/deplatform/censor/etc... then they begin to form isolated groups with no counter-balance of rationality.
...but it is exactly that isolation that create the bubble induced amplification of hate-speech.
If everyone was forced to exist on the same platform (as a though experiment) then hate-speech would have to co-exist with rational thinkers and their hateful ideas might not propagate much.
...but the moment you ban/deplatform/censor/etc... then they begin to form isolated groups with no counter-balance of rationality.
Have you been discussing this online with people that fervently believe the election was fraudulent? It is eerily similar to talking with someone in a cult. Any 'evidence' you present to them will be taken and 'debunked' by their fellow cult members.
There is already no counter balance.
Breaking up their platforms into smaller pieces is actually helpful and will keep them from readily finding new members on the internet.
There is already no counter balance.
Breaking up their platforms into smaller pieces is actually helpful and will keep them from readily finding new members on the internet.
I think this is something that largely gets ignored in all of these discussions about deplatforming, free speech, etc. There is a baked in assumption that all people are rational and will respond to well-reasoned arguments and evidence and will eventually arrive at a reasonable and evidence-based conclusion if you just bear with them and try harder. But my experience so far has not shown this to be the case.
I’ve tried to have a calm and reasonable discourse with people who believe in things like QAnon, anti-vaccination theories, the “deep state”, GMO conspiracies, among others, and I’m a single voice among however many hundreds or thousands of others they are listening to. No amount of evidence or rational argument will sway these people because they are swimming in a sea of voices reinforcing their views.
I’m not sure if deplatforming is the right solution here but I also don’t know what the alternatives are. Should we let them keep espousing and spreading patently false information that is actually causing harm to society to a large audience and hope that people just ignore it? That doesn’t seem like a good solution, either.
I’ve tried to have a calm and reasonable discourse with people who believe in things like QAnon, anti-vaccination theories, the “deep state”, GMO conspiracies, among others, and I’m a single voice among however many hundreds or thousands of others they are listening to. No amount of evidence or rational argument will sway these people because they are swimming in a sea of voices reinforcing their views.
I’m not sure if deplatforming is the right solution here but I also don’t know what the alternatives are. Should we let them keep espousing and spreading patently false information that is actually causing harm to society to a large audience and hope that people just ignore it? That doesn’t seem like a good solution, either.
To be honest, rational argument and evidence doesn't exactly sway people of the opposite belief because they, too, are swimming in a sea of like voices.
Every time big tech bans or suspends a user, another supporter of Trump is born.
Every time big tech bans or suspends a user, another supporter of Trump is born.
Every time we accept violent behavior, that behavior grows.
Agreed, now do antifa and BLM
Violent thinking exists whether or not we "accept it". By putting all the violent thinking people on their own isolated platform, we are facilitating the escalation of their thinking into coordinating actions.
The best school to become a thief is jail. Concentrating violent thinking people together will agitate the self-radicalization that occurs. How do you avoid this?
> The best school to become a thief is jail.
I think that's a US thing. Other countries seem to be genuinely more rehabilitative. Looks like 55% of the state prison population is there for violent offenses: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
Handling non-violent offenders away from the violent ones might be a good start.
I think that's a US thing. Other countries seem to be genuinely more rehabilitative. Looks like 55% of the state prison population is there for violent offenses: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
Handling non-violent offenders away from the violent ones might be a good start.
You can't you just have to let it happen until they implode and you can throw them in prison but at least you've limited their recruitment.
I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree that both "sides" are susceptible to group think and a mob mentality. I consider myself fairly moderate which is why I include examples of extreme views from the left (anti-vaccination theories, GMO conspiracies, 9/11 “truthers”) in my analysis, as well. I’m not a fan of misinformation no matter what the source is and do my best to try to “lead” people away from it.
That being said, what do we do in this situation (which is a common one I see in these kinds of debates)?:
- Group A claims X.
- Person N asks Group A to provide evidence for their claim X.
- Group A cannot provide said evidence, or the evidence provided is unreliable/cannot be validated.
- Person N asks for additional evidence that the claim X made by Group A is true.
- Group A insists they are right and refuses to provide any additional evidence for claim X.
- Person N chooses to not believe Group A’s claim X due to a lack of evidence.
What’s the next step? Assuming good faith on the sides of both parties, how do you reach some sort of agreement or conclusion?
And what do we do when claim X made by Group A is one that leads to violence or other societal harms (such as an increase in death and suffering due to the spread of disease in the case of anti-vaccination theories)?
I don’t have a good answer, here. I desperately want to have rational and productive conversations with people with whom I disagree. But how do you avoid a deadlock situation like the above?
That being said, what do we do in this situation (which is a common one I see in these kinds of debates)?:
- Group A claims X.
- Person N asks Group A to provide evidence for their claim X.
- Group A cannot provide said evidence, or the evidence provided is unreliable/cannot be validated.
- Person N asks for additional evidence that the claim X made by Group A is true.
- Group A insists they are right and refuses to provide any additional evidence for claim X.
- Person N chooses to not believe Group A’s claim X due to a lack of evidence.
What’s the next step? Assuming good faith on the sides of both parties, how do you reach some sort of agreement or conclusion?
And what do we do when claim X made by Group A is one that leads to violence or other societal harms (such as an increase in death and suffering due to the spread of disease in the case of anti-vaccination theories)?
I don’t have a good answer, here. I desperately want to have rational and productive conversations with people with whom I disagree. But how do you avoid a deadlock situation like the above?
> Group A cannot provide said evidence, or the evidence provided is unreliable/cannot be validated.
Recall my post that evidence cannot sway "person N".
Recall my post that evidence cannot sway "person N".
Agreement, and conclusion should be reached by applying procedures to which sides* agree: be it a coin tossing, asking oracle, or voting. Opposing side won't magically disappear when your side achieves power over media. What will likely happen instead they will get more reasonable motivation to wrestle this power from your hands with any means possible.
*Btw, usually there are more then two sides: it's just stale majoritarian system which leaves people just two unsatisfactory choices in US.
*Btw, usually there are more then two sides: it's just stale majoritarian system which leaves people just two unsatisfactory choices in US.
> to which sides* agree:
But that assumes both sides are operating in good faith - it's pretty clear in the example that A are not (as are some sides in the real world.)
But that assumes both sides are operating in good faith - it's pretty clear in the example that A are not (as are some sides in the real world.)
The example tells about inability to reach conclusion in debates, but explicitly assumes good faith, you probably skipped the final part. And in real life as well, not a lot of people would be inclined to choose civil war instead of political/cultural one.
Giving how gullible the general public is, I think this will be a great way to stop the flow of garbage into their gullible minds. Sure the zealots and mentally unstable will find other means to communicate with each other but deplatforming Trump right now is critical to preventing another Capitol building repeat. He needs to be stalled until he has to show up in NY state for tax/real estate fraud charges. Then he will be more focused on that rather than trying to stir up more mayhem.
You are assuming that they will not ultimately form censorship resistant platforms that that will be far more dangerous than having their conversations visible to the majority.
Not only is that game of whack-a-mole unsustainable, it will lead to the creation of un-silencible platforms. ...and if they are scalable they might become the new standard.
It will be pretty sad if social media platforms are ultimately displaced by the platforms created due to their censorship.
Not only is that game of whack-a-mole unsustainable, it will lead to the creation of un-silencible platforms. ...and if they are scalable they might become the new standard.
It will be pretty sad if social media platforms are ultimately displaced by the platforms created due to their censorship.
And it's a fair assumption. If they do, those platform won't have state-like power and leverage like Facebook or Twitter, and will be way easier to patrol. The real solution would be to break down facebook and regulate gigantic internet leviathans to avoid that they become more powerful than nation states. While we work on it, this might be the best solution we have to stop easy radicalization.
Modern online communities fracture into as many sub-groups as deemed necessary by both algorithms and user preference. Moving everyone to one platform won't limit the spread of violent hate speech, or limit organized sub-groups from co-ordinating violent activity.
From a platform perspective, there isn't much difference between companies curtailing the use of their platforms to carry out violent activity and those platforms curtailing other illegal activities such as spamming or malware distribution.
We don't consider sending 1 million unsolicited emails free speech, and wouldn't consider a gang using reddit to co-ordinate free speech. Is there any difference for groups coordinating the violent overthrow of an elected democracy?
From a platform perspective, there isn't much difference between companies curtailing the use of their platforms to carry out violent activity and those platforms curtailing other illegal activities such as spamming or malware distribution.
We don't consider sending 1 million unsolicited emails free speech, and wouldn't consider a gang using reddit to co-ordinate free speech. Is there any difference for groups coordinating the violent overthrow of an elected democracy?
> the moment you ban/deplatform/censor/etc... then they begin to form isolated groups with no counter-balance of rationality.
(1) Rationality is not a counterbalance to implacable, violent division when there is a fundamental conflict of value. Rationality is just ruthlessly optimized maximization of one's own utility function.
(2) For those things where rationality in principal could be a counterbalance, the problem is that people (all of them) are not rational (rationality is an abstract, unattainable ideal), and the ways in which certain people are irrational can minimize the effect of what partial rationality other people in the group they are incorporated into have.
When a group tries to exclude certain ideas from general conversation, it tends to be ideas whose expression is seen as indicateling one or both of (a) irreconcilable conflict of values with values that the rest of the groups sees as table stakes, and/or (b) incorrigible and toxic-to-the-group irrationality in assessment of reality and pursuit of values, whether or not these values are compatible with the group’s values.
So, in either case, the decision is not made in a lack of awareness that isolation removes, int he abstract, rationality as a counterbalance in the conflict between the core group and the excised group, it's is made instead because of the belief that rationality does not function as such a counterbalance with the concrete group targeted for excision, and indeed that the presence of that excised group mitigates the function rationality otherwise would serve as a counterbalance to conflicts within the core group.
(1) Rationality is not a counterbalance to implacable, violent division when there is a fundamental conflict of value. Rationality is just ruthlessly optimized maximization of one's own utility function.
(2) For those things where rationality in principal could be a counterbalance, the problem is that people (all of them) are not rational (rationality is an abstract, unattainable ideal), and the ways in which certain people are irrational can minimize the effect of what partial rationality other people in the group they are incorporated into have.
When a group tries to exclude certain ideas from general conversation, it tends to be ideas whose expression is seen as indicateling one or both of (a) irreconcilable conflict of values with values that the rest of the groups sees as table stakes, and/or (b) incorrigible and toxic-to-the-group irrationality in assessment of reality and pursuit of values, whether or not these values are compatible with the group’s values.
So, in either case, the decision is not made in a lack of awareness that isolation removes, int he abstract, rationality as a counterbalance in the conflict between the core group and the excised group, it's is made instead because of the belief that rationality does not function as such a counterbalance with the concrete group targeted for excision, and indeed that the presence of that excised group mitigates the function rationality otherwise would serve as a counterbalance to conflicts within the core group.
> ...but the moment you ban/deplatform/censor/etc... then they begin to form isolated groups with no counter-balance of rationality.
The first such group that comes to mind is Heaven's Gate, which I think illustrates the opposite:
A brief reading of Wikipedia suggests to me that key members arrived in place via media attention, even though they spent significant other effort trying to recruit members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group...
The first such group that comes to mind is Heaven's Gate, which I think illustrates the opposite:
A brief reading of Wikipedia suggests to me that key members arrived in place via media attention, even though they spent significant other effort trying to recruit members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group...
I see your point but unfortunately this is really not how platforms these days work... Even if people are on the "same platform" they get trapped in their own echo chambers because by doing so the platforms make the most amount of money.
This argument only makes sense if you act like history began in the 20th century. There was so clearly much more widespread racism and neonazism long before the mainstream internet. Also yes I do think that soccer mom would go to an in-person event if she sees some politician that appeals to her fears and biases, we've seen that all before. It doesn't mean she'll storm the US capitol building, but it does mean she can exist without Facebook.
Deplatforming is isolation and in a sense, this already happened on reddit because they could isolate their own topic ( eg. TheDonald) from other opinions ( eg. Snowflake).
I'm not sure where the sitting is, but the ones radicalizing right now don't get a counter opinion.
I'm not sure where the sitting is, but the ones radicalizing right now don't get a counter opinion.
We all can agree situation and potential solutions are complex beyond imagination, but there is one place, one long term action that could solve most of this to some degree - proper mandatory education, based on proved science. Learn kids critical thinking, rather than raise another obedient generation who doesn't think for themselves and picks up a narrative from some place and then just sticks with it. Learning more soft skills at school (at which most teachers suck, but that's another topic), psychology, why people behave as they do, biases, how our childhood affects us all etc. I think generally our schooling systems globally need big rehaul, but for topic discussed, I can't imagine what I mention it wouldn't bring some improvement.
Teaching with current level of science as hard baseline is already a place where some western countries like US fail (ie evolution vs creationism topic).
I don't think the change I mention is in direct interest of many governments, so its more like a pipe dream and an additional burden on parents to drill this into their kids.
Teaching with current level of science as hard baseline is already a place where some western countries like US fail (ie evolution vs creationism topic).
I don't think the change I mention is in direct interest of many governments, so its more like a pipe dream and an additional burden on parents to drill this into their kids.
I would de-emphasise pop psychology, and more emphasise:
- clarity: while not everything has a right or wrong answer, but lots of things do
- robustness: it's okay for people to disagree with you, and also for you to be wrong and learn from it
- reason: avoiding the standard fallacies
- agreeing to disagree: individuals you know/interact with and your relationships with them are more important than abstract tribes you may or may not belong to
- clarity: while not everything has a right or wrong answer, but lots of things do
- robustness: it's okay for people to disagree with you, and also for you to be wrong and learn from it
- reason: avoiding the standard fallacies
- agreeing to disagree: individuals you know/interact with and your relationships with them are more important than abstract tribes you may or may not belong to
I've been saying the same, but sometimes I doubt something like that could be implemented. "Based on proven science" doesn't work for most things social.
How do you teach someone to self-analyze and understand where their problems are actually coming from? To question their own conclusions and rethink what they know?
Still, it's possible to improve the current education system, by a lot. The current "learn this, don't ask why" doesn't work, and to make it worse, parents can be just as uninformed and stubborn as their kids, so they'll come to school raising hell over their lil' precious' bad grades.
How do you teach someone to self-analyze and understand where their problems are actually coming from? To question their own conclusions and rethink what they know?
Still, it's possible to improve the current education system, by a lot. The current "learn this, don't ask why" doesn't work, and to make it worse, parents can be just as uninformed and stubborn as their kids, so they'll come to school raising hell over their lil' precious' bad grades.
As I understand it, this is essentially what various specialties bucketed under “therapy” work to understand and practice ethically and safely. “Give all schoolchildren therapy” sounds a bit radical but I imagine there are ways to scale it that would be 100x more valuable than the typical curriculum.
> proper mandatory education, based on proved science
In the case of political discourse, that may improve the case around some 'fringe theory' concepts which add fuel to the fire, but it's not going to stop the core 'fire', which is driven by philosophy/ethics/metaphysics.
People need to be able to break the 'fourth wall' in these debates in order to question their philosophical biases, and empiricism-as-answer-to-all-problems is also a philosophical bias - eugenics was seen by many as 'scientific virtue' in the 1920s, as one obvious example
In the case of political discourse, that may improve the case around some 'fringe theory' concepts which add fuel to the fire, but it's not going to stop the core 'fire', which is driven by philosophy/ethics/metaphysics.
People need to be able to break the 'fourth wall' in these debates in order to question their philosophical biases, and empiricism-as-answer-to-all-problems is also a philosophical bias - eugenics was seen by many as 'scientific virtue' in the 1920s, as one obvious example
Teaching is one group of people trying to instill their ideas/understanding to others. There's always an authority to decide what should be taught, and it's power will be abused. Resorting to just proven science may limit these abuses but will leave you without social sciences/humanities altogether, because they almost never operate with properly (from scientific pov) proven things
1. Scientific and rational debate are first class citizens in online communication
2. No speech limitations should be placed on online discussions unless it deviates away from rational debate.
3. Newsfeeds are sorted by popularity AND scientific accuracy.
4. All opinions about an issue, article, or topic are categorized and mapped on a spectrum. Meta data for quick analysis: how does my opinion compare to my peers?
2. No speech limitations should be placed on online discussions unless it deviates away from rational debate.
3. Newsfeeds are sorted by popularity AND scientific accuracy.
4. All opinions about an issue, article, or topic are categorized and mapped on a spectrum. Meta data for quick analysis: how does my opinion compare to my peers?
And I just I want to add,
As long as the Internet exist, ( not only the Web, but the Net ) you are only pushing these people to other places. And possibly to an invitation only sub group. They will form its circle in Telegram or other means of media. A bit slower than they first appeared. But the power of internet meant that movement is still relatively quick. And with the power of Hyperlink, news and information spread just as fast as they are in a single group.
So the platform isn't Facebook, Twitter or Youtube, It is the Internet. Or the name information super highway really describe the point better. Which sort of brings the question of regulating the internet but we wont go into that for now.
There is another point wroth mentioning. The making of decent fake news that cant be easily rebutted is far easier than the time and money required to spent for Fact Checking. Not to mention most people dont bother Fact Checking in the first place.
Having been on the other side of the fence with freedom of speech taken away, I agree with parent and grand parent;
Freedom of speech is of extremely high importance for any free society and should not be taken for granted
I think deplatforming is a bad solution to this problem.
As long as the Internet exist, ( not only the Web, but the Net ) you are only pushing these people to other places. And possibly to an invitation only sub group. They will form its circle in Telegram or other means of media. A bit slower than they first appeared. But the power of internet meant that movement is still relatively quick. And with the power of Hyperlink, news and information spread just as fast as they are in a single group.
So the platform isn't Facebook, Twitter or Youtube, It is the Internet. Or the name information super highway really describe the point better. Which sort of brings the question of regulating the internet but we wont go into that for now.
There is another point wroth mentioning. The making of decent fake news that cant be easily rebutted is far easier than the time and money required to spent for Fact Checking. Not to mention most people dont bother Fact Checking in the first place.
Having been on the other side of the fence with freedom of speech taken away, I agree with parent and grand parent;
Freedom of speech is of extremely high importance for any free society and should not be taken for granted
I think deplatforming is a bad solution to this problem.
I agree that deplatforming is a bad solution to the problem. I don't think there is an easy solution to "the problem", certainly not by tech companies. The response by tech companies is more like an emergency response to a dangerously close attempt to overthrow the government. It is an incredible show of power by the tech companies, and I am sure both political camps have taken notice regardless of their preferences in this particular case.
I think the free speech issue may be a little overblown here. I would be really concerned if cable companies stop carrying Fox News, but I get that this is a slippery slope. However, I think at the end of the slippery slope is not really the end of free speech, but rather two completely separate echo chambers each with its own mega distribution channels.
I think the free speech issue may be a little overblown here. I would be really concerned if cable companies stop carrying Fox News, but I get that this is a slippery slope. However, I think at the end of the slippery slope is not really the end of free speech, but rather two completely separate echo chambers each with its own mega distribution channels.
The government has been shutting down death threats and open sedition since the birth of the United States. There's a difference between free speech and saying "i'm going to go down to the capitol and put _______ head on a spike" . That's not free speech that's a threat. "Let's blow up ____________" is also a threat and not free speech. Also facebook, twitter, etc should not host such things, and they decided not to, thus this really isn't about free speech in the Constitution and no one really has ever had a right to post such things anywhere unless they have a contract that says it, and such a contract would be illegal anyway. The government didn't force AWS to remove Parler.
Not an American as well. Regarding alternative solutions, maybe people should try to soothe trump supporters in order to rid the extremists among them of grounds for committing violent crimes, and it should be done as soon as possible to avoid the impression of conceding to violence.
For example, Democrat leadership could promise to hold another election immediately after the vaccination is complete. In addition, to persuade trump supporters, they could consider getting rid of mail-in ballots, and legislating a Democratic version of voter ID law.
It's the democratic solution as well. Democracy should be about appealing to the largest possible percentage of population, and shutting up the other side is not a democratic solution to the current US crisis.
For example, Democrat leadership could promise to hold another election immediately after the vaccination is complete. In addition, to persuade trump supporters, they could consider getting rid of mail-in ballots, and legislating a Democratic version of voter ID law.
It's the democratic solution as well. Democracy should be about appealing to the largest possible percentage of population, and shutting up the other side is not a democratic solution to the current US crisis.
These are terrible ideas IMHO.
Republicans don't like mail-in voting because it makes it a lot easier for the entire population to vote, and they have been spending the last few decades making it a lot harder for people who are not rich white suburbanites to vote.
Republicans don't like mail-in voting because it makes it a lot easier for the entire population to vote, and they have been spending the last few decades making it a lot harder for people who are not rich white suburbanites to vote.
What we need is a blockchained using name, DOB, address, and ID. At that point, most issues go away and where you vote becomes much less important.
Neither the Democrat nor Republican establishments want that either. After all, rigging primaries or engaging in other dubious activities would be much too hard.
Neither the Democrat nor Republican establishments want that either. After all, rigging primaries or engaging in other dubious activities would be much too hard.
The changes need to still allow for anonymous voting. Nobody should face repercussions for how they vote.
And equally important, no one should be able to prove to someone else how they voted (because if they can prove it, coerced[1] voting could be a thing). "Secure voting" is a complicated beast, at the best of times.
[1] I am using "coerced" a bit loose here, I am including both "vote X, or else" as well as "if you vote X, I will give you this $SUM money". If it is by structure impossible to show that you complied, it is less likely that either will happen.
[1] I am using "coerced" a bit loose here, I am including both "vote X, or else" as well as "if you vote X, I will give you this $SUM money". If it is by structure impossible to show that you complied, it is less likely that either will happen.
The actual votes on a block can be encrypted separately.
The chain makes the system completely and easily auditable. You can't easily game the system. Votes can be easily tallied and randomly sampled to ask voters if the votes match up.
As to repercussions, you already sign your ballots and register to vote. Because of this, there's pretty much no stopping government repercussions if they chose to take action.
Most importantly, it gets rid of all the election fraud debate.
The chain makes the system completely and easily auditable. You can't easily game the system. Votes can be easily tallied and randomly sampled to ask voters if the votes match up.
As to repercussions, you already sign your ballots and register to vote. Because of this, there's pretty much no stopping government repercussions if they chose to take action.
Most importantly, it gets rid of all the election fraud debate.
But then someone has to decrypt the vote, and the vote has metadata about its source. You have to operate under the assumption that a gov actor would take that information and punish you if it was not the vote they wanted (however unlikely, that’s what we’re protecting against)
I am an Independent. I don’t like mail-in voting, at least as it exists today, because it opens up extraordinarily easy avenues for voting fraud. In the run up to the 2020 election, Democrats at the state level (where most election regulations are actually decided) opened the mail-in voting laws so far and wide that anyone with a pen could send in as many votes as they wanted in different names and nobody would have any proof of which were valid and which weren’t.
Note that I am not saying that widespread fraud actually occurred in this election...there was no evidence of it, in large part because the laws were setup so that there wouldn’t be. But that isn’t really the point. It could have occurred and nobody could ever prove it, short of the perpetrators themselves coming forward to admit what they did.
Unless something changes before 2024, there is no longer any point in bothering to cast your vote. When anyone can vote without having to prove that they are eligible, and can do it remotely, it renders all votes meaningless.
Note that I am not saying that widespread fraud actually occurred in this election...there was no evidence of it, in large part because the laws were setup so that there wouldn’t be. But that isn’t really the point. It could have occurred and nobody could ever prove it, short of the perpetrators themselves coming forward to admit what they did.
Unless something changes before 2024, there is no longer any point in bothering to cast your vote. When anyone can vote without having to prove that they are eligible, and can do it remotely, it renders all votes meaningless.
I generally agree with you, and would prefer we move toward in person voting on paper ballots in as many jurisdictions as possible. With easy exemptions for people with mobility impairments, etc.
However I think any pressure towards in-person voting MUST be accompanied by an expansion of rights in terms of how far polling places are from you, a national holiday where everyone gets the day off work, sizeable transportation stipends, etc. Without all of that, requiring people to vote in person is de facto disenfranchisment.
And furthermore, with regards to 2020, I disagree with you wholeheartedly. I think everyone had a right to no-contact voting this year due to COVID. It was a special set of circumstances.
However I think any pressure towards in-person voting MUST be accompanied by an expansion of rights in terms of how far polling places are from you, a national holiday where everyone gets the day off work, sizeable transportation stipends, etc. Without all of that, requiring people to vote in person is de facto disenfranchisment.
And furthermore, with regards to 2020, I disagree with you wholeheartedly. I think everyone had a right to no-contact voting this year due to COVID. It was a special set of circumstances.
I agree with you that voting needs to be as accessible as possible, as long as we have steps in place to ensure that only eligible voters are voting, and that they are only able to do so once. I don’t know how you do that with the hard push against voter ID laws, however.
With regard to 2020, the changes to the laws that occurred could have been entirely well-intentioned. They probably were. But those changes have led to the current crisis of confidence in the election results, and rightly so.
With regard to 2020, the changes to the laws that occurred could have been entirely well-intentioned. They probably were. But those changes have led to the current crisis of confidence in the election results, and rightly so.
> anyone with a pen could send in as many votes as they wanted in different names and nobody would have any proof of which were valid and which weren’t.
I can't find any evidence for this. Further, at least where I live, ballots are mailed to voters and include a control number that ensures only one vote is counted for that person.
I can't find any evidence for this. Further, at least where I live, ballots are mailed to voters and include a control number that ensures only one vote is counted for that person.
Well that’s the issue. There is a patchwork of state and local laws that determine who can vote, what (if any) requirements there are for voter registration, how deaths of registered voters are handled, etc. Even where you live, you might be surprised by how easy it might be to register to vote, and that process might be open for large amounts of fraud. It becomes a very murky issue when you allow each state to set their own rules, and then each state can allow each county flexibility within state law.
Then there is the issue of dead people that have not been removed from the voter rolls. We know for a fact that in 2020, many of these were returned, filled out, likely by family members. That alone is an issue (example: https://youtu.be/CINHx-z9cbk ).
Here is an article with an overview of some of the laws that were changed/relaxed in 2020. Generally speaking, each relaxed restriction opens up more and more avenues for fraud:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/states-changed-rules-voting-...
Then there is the issue of dead people that have not been removed from the voter rolls. We know for a fact that in 2020, many of these were returned, filled out, likely by family members. That alone is an issue (example: https://youtu.be/CINHx-z9cbk ).
Here is an article with an overview of some of the laws that were changed/relaxed in 2020. Generally speaking, each relaxed restriction opens up more and more avenues for fraud:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/states-changed-rules-voting-...
Registering to vote and voting are not the same thing.
You claim fraud and offer a video as proof. The video contradicts you. In it they explicitly say, a few times, there wasn't any fraud.
You claim fraud and offer a video as proof. The video contradicts you. In it they explicitly say, a few times, there wasn't any fraud.
The video said that votes from dead people were counted in violation of state law. Call it fraud, call it a mistake. Invalid votes were counted. I am not sure how that contradicts me. The point of this conversation is, quite simply, that the rules were changed in a way dramatically increased the possibility of fraudulent/invalid votes being counted. That makes voting pointless unless and until the rules are changed.
Further, at least in this election, voting and registering to vote were one in the same in many jurisdictions. Many states automatically sent out mail-in ballots to everyone that was registered. All that had to be done from there was to fill it out and send it in. Families of dead people sent in those ballots in many cases.
Registering to vote as someone else, or as an entirely fictional person, is absurdly easy in many jurisdictions. In California, for instance, one can skip any identity checks by simply marking two checkboxes: one indicating they have no ID, and one indicating they have no social security number [1]. Voila, you are now a registered voter. Combine this absurdity with automatically sent out mail-in ballots in many states, and you have a disaster waiting to happen.
[1] https://covr.sos.ca.gov/
Further, at least in this election, voting and registering to vote were one in the same in many jurisdictions. Many states automatically sent out mail-in ballots to everyone that was registered. All that had to be done from there was to fill it out and send it in. Families of dead people sent in those ballots in many cases.
Registering to vote as someone else, or as an entirely fictional person, is absurdly easy in many jurisdictions. In California, for instance, one can skip any identity checks by simply marking two checkboxes: one indicating they have no ID, and one indicating they have no social security number [1]. Voila, you are now a registered voter. Combine this absurdity with automatically sent out mail-in ballots in many states, and you have a disaster waiting to happen.
[1] https://covr.sos.ca.gov/
A couple of states have had vote-by-mail for years, and Oregon at least has had it exclusively for decades.
The Republican Secretary of State ran an election audit in 2016 and found that, over 2+ million votes cast, around 50 or so were "fraudulent," most of those being cast by people who voted in Oregon and elsewhere.
Vote-by-mail is not problematic, if you consider the historical evidence provided by places that have been doing it for a while.
The Republican Secretary of State ran an election audit in 2016 and found that, over 2+ million votes cast, around 50 or so were "fraudulent," most of those being cast by people who voted in Oregon and elsewhere.
Vote-by-mail is not problematic, if you consider the historical evidence provided by places that have been doing it for a while.
Vote-by-mail is not problematic
That is the party line, but you have no way of actually knowing that. The election audit to which you refer has no way of knowing how many votes were cast by identities that were simply invented because of the ease of registration in many states (which has now been combined with proactive sending of mail-in ballots, thanks to COVID). Sure, they can tie together people who voted in more than one state, but that isn’t the attack vector that anyone with any sense would use. Show me a good way of identifying brand new identities used to vote in states where there are easy ways to bypass ID requirements (such as California). There isn’t.
That is the party line, but you have no way of actually knowing that. The election audit to which you refer has no way of knowing how many votes were cast by identities that were simply invented because of the ease of registration in many states (which has now been combined with proactive sending of mail-in ballots, thanks to COVID). Sure, they can tie together people who voted in more than one state, but that isn’t the attack vector that anyone with any sense would use. Show me a good way of identifying brand new identities used to vote in states where there are easy ways to bypass ID requirements (such as California). There isn’t.
Vote-by-mail allows pressure tactics and potentially removes the privacy of voting. For example, abusive spouses can control the ballot of their victim. It also allows payments for votes, because the ballot can be checked by the payer.
Mail in voting is fine, no one has -ever- been able to prove it widespread enough to change an election (unless you live in a town of like 50 people). This has been studied over and over. Every time they check out the supposed fraudulent votes nothing pans out. It is an empty and flawed argument. The ones saying that it lends itself to being fraudulent need to prove it.
Of course nobody can prove it. The rules are setup to be so loose that there is no way to prove any fraud. As I said below, registering to vote as an entirely fictional person is absurdly easy in many jurisdictions. In California, for instance, one can skip any identity checks by simply marking two checkboxes: one indicating they have no ID, and one indicating they have no social security number [1]. Voila - in under 2 minutes, you have invented a brand new, registered California voter. Combine this absurdity with automatically sent out mail-in ballots in many states, and you have a disaster waiting to happen.
[1] https://covr.sos.ca.gov/
[1] https://covr.sos.ca.gov/
You're forgetting something. If someone were to check the existence of the identities, they would eventually show up as fraudulent. Here, the "proof" works by absence (which is admittedly not logically correct according to the strict classical rules).¹
Consider that an investigation (that includes said identity check), concluding with a recount happens
• mandatory by design to a random small subset of voting districts
• everytime someone reports to the voting commission an indication or outright evidence of irregularities or fraud
• everytime there is a difference between head-to-head candidates smaller than a certain percentage
If GP is right and "nothing pans out", then that means that the CA Secretary of State web site is not an effective tool to commit voting fraud.
¹ A common analogue is: "I do not believe in gods. Theists can change my mind when they bring forth evidence that measures up to the extraordinary claim. In the last couple of thousands of years, this did not happen. Thus, I will live my life as if gods do not exist."
Consider that an investigation (that includes said identity check), concluding with a recount happens
• mandatory by design to a random small subset of voting districts
• everytime someone reports to the voting commission an indication or outright evidence of irregularities or fraud
• everytime there is a difference between head-to-head candidates smaller than a certain percentage
If GP is right and "nothing pans out", then that means that the CA Secretary of State web site is not an effective tool to commit voting fraud.
¹ A common analogue is: "I do not believe in gods. Theists can change my mind when they bring forth evidence that measures up to the extraordinary claim. In the last couple of thousands of years, this did not happen. Thus, I will live my life as if gods do not exist."
Here, the "proof" works by absence
Absence from where? It is perfectly legal to not have an ID or social security number. Not having those things proves nothing. And nobody is going to track down everyone in the country with the same name and DOB that you selected and ask them if they are the Fred Wilson (example) that voted in California. People move all the time, so it wouldn’t be unusual if they went by the house and that person doesn’t live there.
The way that system is setup to accept voters without ID verification, there is not a way to legally disprove that the person with whatever name and DOB chosen does not exist (assuming more than 1 other person in the country shares those characteristics). Hence it would be impossible to legally prove that this invented person isn’t real.
Absence from where? It is perfectly legal to not have an ID or social security number. Not having those things proves nothing. And nobody is going to track down everyone in the country with the same name and DOB that you selected and ask them if they are the Fred Wilson (example) that voted in California. People move all the time, so it wouldn’t be unusual if they went by the house and that person doesn’t live there.
The way that system is setup to accept voters without ID verification, there is not a way to legally disprove that the person with whatever name and DOB chosen does not exist (assuming more than 1 other person in the country shares those characteristics). Hence it would be impossible to legally prove that this invented person isn’t real.
Exceptional claims require exceptional proof. Being able to file one fake account vs 10,000 (and not get caught) to throw an election is about the level of proof you'll need and no one has ever come up with that level of proof. Until then people claiming mail fraud are just shouting into the hurricane of the rights of individuals to not be disenfranchised.
Exceptional claims require exceptional proof.
I literally just showed how shockingly easy it is for anyone to invent California voters in a matter of seconds. That’s exceptional in my opinion. I could write a script that would register 10k of those in several minutes. But the more likely scenario is that I can’t be the only one that has realized this...nobody knows how many people are doing this once or a few times.
That is the whole point of this conversation - the possibility of incredibly easy, undetectable fraud renders all votes meaningless because we simply don’t know how much occurred and there is no way to find out because the rules are so loose. Until they are changed, it completely negates any point in voting.
I literally just showed how shockingly easy it is for anyone to invent California voters in a matter of seconds. That’s exceptional in my opinion. I could write a script that would register 10k of those in several minutes. But the more likely scenario is that I can’t be the only one that has realized this...nobody knows how many people are doing this once or a few times.
That is the whole point of this conversation - the possibility of incredibly easy, undetectable fraud renders all votes meaningless because we simply don’t know how much occurred and there is no way to find out because the rules are so loose. Until they are changed, it completely negates any point in voting.
Utah has had no excuse mail-in voting since 2014, the 2016 presidential election in Utah was almost entirely by mail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting_in_the_United_St...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting_in_the_United_St...
If we held new elections every time one side didn't like the result, we wouldn't have a democracy. As Mitt Romney (Republican senator) noted, no congressional commission or other action would restore faith in the vote while the president is actively lying to his constituency.
To capitulate to them is a terrible idea. They had dozens of chances to prove in court that there was fraud, they never produced anything substantive. These people weren't convinced via proof, they simply believe whatever Trump tells them to believe. All you can do is try to contain it, you will never convince the core of his followers that he lost fairly in the election. If he were to lose another election then the violence would only get worse. We have a process, in 4 years they can vote again. When you give into a bully he will just come back for more the next time.
> - Speech without a platform isn't speech at all
Could you clarify what you mean exactly with this. In my mind people should have a right to ignore speech they don't want to hear. Furthermore, the definition of a "platform" has become very diffuse with the advent of the internet. In the before times you were either in the newspaper most people read, or maybe on one of the handful of TV channels, or you basically did not have a platform beyond the people you could physically interact with. Whereas now you can have many options which all reach different kinds and amounts of people.
I have many vague feelings but maybe I can sum them up in the following, probably unhelpful, statement: people have a right to a platform that is equivalent to standing in a town square and yelling.
Could you clarify what you mean exactly with this. In my mind people should have a right to ignore speech they don't want to hear. Furthermore, the definition of a "platform" has become very diffuse with the advent of the internet. In the before times you were either in the newspaper most people read, or maybe on one of the handful of TV channels, or you basically did not have a platform beyond the people you could physically interact with. Whereas now you can have many options which all reach different kinds and amounts of people.
I have many vague feelings but maybe I can sum them up in the following, probably unhelpful, statement: people have a right to a platform that is equivalent to standing in a town square and yelling.
It's hard to ignore Twitter and Facebook. They're mega-platforms with many uses beyond politics (business, hobbies, family, etc).
Whilst on there for non-political purposes, you can't in practice 'choose to ignore' the political speech you'd prefer to avoid, as it's made everybody an activist with a massive megaphone. Activism is shared and retweeted into your face relentlessly.
If Big Tech as a whole has decided to wage war on 'red team' ideas (or other competing ideas, such as Unity 2020, banned from Twitter), there's a risk that they could transform a bad 2-party political system into a single-party monopoly, where the voters have no power at all.
Things weren't good when old media (TV/newspapers) had all the power+influence. But at least there was some sort of balance. And if a new newspaper appeared, it couldn't be shut down entirely in <24hrs by the competition.
Whilst on there for non-political purposes, you can't in practice 'choose to ignore' the political speech you'd prefer to avoid, as it's made everybody an activist with a massive megaphone. Activism is shared and retweeted into your face relentlessly.
If Big Tech as a whole has decided to wage war on 'red team' ideas (or other competing ideas, such as Unity 2020, banned from Twitter), there's a risk that they could transform a bad 2-party political system into a single-party monopoly, where the voters have no power at all.
Things weren't good when old media (TV/newspapers) had all the power+influence. But at least there was some sort of balance. And if a new newspaper appeared, it couldn't be shut down entirely in <24hrs by the competition.
On the contrary, it's quite easy to ignore Twitter and Facebook. I do it all day, every day, and it takes zero effort.
And if a new newspaper appeared, it couldn't be shut down entirely in <24hrs by the competition.
It could if it had used printing presses owned by the competition. I'm assuming these old newspapers used either their own printing presses, or presses owned by independent printing shops. They used a little common sense and concluded that using printing presses owned by the NY Times was probably not a good long term strategy for a newspaper that wanted to compete against the NY Times.
All I'm saying is, use your own printing presses, and you can't be shutdown. Run your own website, on your own server and no one will kick you off their servers. Nothing's really changed here, so I don't see a free speech issue.
It could if it had used printing presses owned by the competition. I'm assuming these old newspapers used either their own printing presses, or presses owned by independent printing shops. They used a little common sense and concluded that using printing presses owned by the NY Times was probably not a good long term strategy for a newspaper that wanted to compete against the NY Times.
All I'm saying is, use your own printing presses, and you can't be shutdown. Run your own website, on your own server and no one will kick you off their servers. Nothing's really changed here, so I don't see a free speech issue.
Buying your own servers is no use if you can't get them connected to the Internet. Next step, build your own Internet?
How do you think Amazon connects to the internet?
They have their own network, own peering agreements, etc etc etc. They didn't build the internet, they built their own "platform" by building out their own little corner of the internet. You want to be a "platform" like Amazon, but you don't want to build everything necessary for a "platform" to be a platform. That is the crux of the problem. If what you really want is simply free speech, well that's free. If all you really want is a website, well that's pretty cheap too, but maybe not free. But when you start talking about platforms, you have to pay to build the platform you want. Even a soapbox is not free, someone somewhere had to pay for it.
You're complaining that building a platform is too expensive the same way someone a hundred years ago may have complained that buying the presses is too expensive. It makes no sense. If you want to print your own paper, you need the presses.
They have their own network, own peering agreements, etc etc etc. They didn't build the internet, they built their own "platform" by building out their own little corner of the internet. You want to be a "platform" like Amazon, but you don't want to build everything necessary for a "platform" to be a platform. That is the crux of the problem. If what you really want is simply free speech, well that's free. If all you really want is a website, well that's pretty cheap too, but maybe not free. But when you start talking about platforms, you have to pay to build the platform you want. Even a soapbox is not free, someone somewhere had to pay for it.
You're complaining that building a platform is too expensive the same way someone a hundred years ago may have complained that buying the presses is too expensive. It makes no sense. If you want to print your own paper, you need the presses.
I see your point, and this raises the question of internet being a basic universal right. I think it is and I think the ISPs should be treated as such and thus unable to pick and choose what content we are served so if Parler buys their own servers and connects then they should be fine.
I'm against the highest level of the stack so to speak having to be available to everyone such as Twitter, that would be us saying these companies are too critical to our way of life and forcing a private entity to do business with those it doesn't want to, which is not only dangerous but I believe simply not true if we foster the building of others and should be summarily changed or investigated as a new type of monopoly if we find (are finding?) that they are becoming too critical, centralizing is bad.
I am also against people not being able to connect their services at the lower level of the stack to then build out their offering on the higher level of the stack though and that's where I think we need to regulate.
I'm against the highest level of the stack so to speak having to be available to everyone such as Twitter, that would be us saying these companies are too critical to our way of life and forcing a private entity to do business with those it doesn't want to, which is not only dangerous but I believe simply not true if we foster the building of others and should be summarily changed or investigated as a new type of monopoly if we find (are finding?) that they are becoming too critical, centralizing is bad.
I am also against people not being able to connect their services at the lower level of the stack to then build out their offering on the higher level of the stack though and that's where I think we need to regulate.
People have a right to any platform they are able to create. The problem with centralized social media is that it is a monopoly with legal protections and is able to essentially exclude people from the de facto town square.
This has been the balancing act for centuries (since the printing press). The scale/speed has changed over time, but newspapers and TV stations can and have "de-platformed" people in the past.
At the end of the day, I'm a strong supporter of free speech. But, it's up to the speaker to provide their own platform. If all they can manage is a literal soapbox in the town square, so be it. There is no fundamental right for a person's speech to be easily broadcast, nor is there a right for that speech to be heard or acknowledged.
As long as Twitter, Facebook, the NYT, and the WSJ are private entities, they also have their own rights. If we really want to prevent de-platforming, the solution seems to be categorizing media companies as some sort of utility. But, I don't really know what they would look like.
At the end of the day, I'm a strong supporter of free speech. But, it's up to the speaker to provide their own platform. If all they can manage is a literal soapbox in the town square, so be it. There is no fundamental right for a person's speech to be easily broadcast, nor is there a right for that speech to be heard or acknowledged.
As long as Twitter, Facebook, the NYT, and the WSJ are private entities, they also have their own rights. If we really want to prevent de-platforming, the solution seems to be categorizing media companies as some sort of utility. But, I don't really know what they would look like.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to force others to listen or post your recorded message. Everyone is free to speak out. Everyone is free to write letters.
Yes it sucks your audience is limited but you are correct, people have a right to any platform they are able to create.
Also monopolies and oligopolies are what happens in unregulated capitalism. If frustrates me that the many of folks today who take issue with the tech giants have been pro deregulation, pro capitalism, and screaming about how afraid we should be because a boring sleepy vanilla POTUS is going to usher in socialism and communism... WTF is your solution then? Everyone can point out problems and evoke FUD.
Yes it sucks your audience is limited but you are correct, people have a right to any platform they are able to create.
Also monopolies and oligopolies are what happens in unregulated capitalism. If frustrates me that the many of folks today who take issue with the tech giants have been pro deregulation, pro capitalism, and screaming about how afraid we should be because a boring sleepy vanilla POTUS is going to usher in socialism and communism... WTF is your solution then? Everyone can point out problems and evoke FUD.
> people have a right to any platform they are able to create.
This argument is becoming increasingly disingenuous based on actions of just the last few days.
Didn’t Parler go ahead and do exactly what you recommended?
* cut off from Google Play and Apple Store. Most people don’t even have personal computers anymore, so their phone / IPad is the only way to access the platforms.
* Apple doesn’t allow side loading. Google makes it less and less viable and so many necessary APIs are moved out of the open Android Sdk and into the gated Play APIs.
* As if to demonstrate the absolute futility of your suggestion, AWS cut off Parler‘s servers.
* Any site need some sort of financial API. How many times have we seen companies like Stripe, GoFundMe, Visa and MasterCard, and even large banks give in to the mob.
* every other required piece of the puzzle will do the same: DNS providers, CDNs, and even the large backbone ISPs. Sorry, bigot, but we’ve decided we won’t be routing your traffic through our exchange.
* Even power companies are privatized in the US. Sorry, just go make your own power grid, right?
This argument is becoming increasingly disingenuous based on actions of just the last few days.
Didn’t Parler go ahead and do exactly what you recommended?
* cut off from Google Play and Apple Store. Most people don’t even have personal computers anymore, so their phone / IPad is the only way to access the platforms.
* Apple doesn’t allow side loading. Google makes it less and less viable and so many necessary APIs are moved out of the open Android Sdk and into the gated Play APIs.
* As if to demonstrate the absolute futility of your suggestion, AWS cut off Parler‘s servers.
* Any site need some sort of financial API. How many times have we seen companies like Stripe, GoFundMe, Visa and MasterCard, and even large banks give in to the mob.
* every other required piece of the puzzle will do the same: DNS providers, CDNs, and even the large backbone ISPs. Sorry, bigot, but we’ve decided we won’t be routing your traffic through our exchange.
* Even power companies are privatized in the US. Sorry, just go make your own power grid, right?
This argument is becoming increasingly disingenuous based on actions of just the last few days.
Didn’t Parler go ahead and do exactly what you recommended?
Parler only went halfway there. They created a app/website. But, that's not an entire platform (as we see today). An entire platform in this context includes servers, fiber optic networks, routers, etc. If Parler wants to speak on the scale they envision, they can build their own infrastructure to do so. Yes, that's expensive, but it's also no different than the pre-internet era, where similar speech would be relegated to self-published fliers, because no newspaper or TV would carry the message.
Parler only went halfway there. They created a app/website. But, that's not an entire platform (as we see today). An entire platform in this context includes servers, fiber optic networks, routers, etc. If Parler wants to speak on the scale they envision, they can build their own infrastructure to do so. Yes, that's expensive, but it's also no different than the pre-internet era, where similar speech would be relegated to self-published fliers, because no newspaper or TV would carry the message.
'Ok, you've obtained a printing press and related supplies and are printing your own newspapers. But to distribute them, you first need to build your own road network, you're banned from our roads. And you'll need a power station, as you're about to get cut off the grid!'
Social media created a new type of platform. But people are forgetting that it also created a new and more vicious type of activism, too.
Social media created a new type of platform. But people are forgetting that it also created a new and more vicious type of activism, too.
Roads and power grid are utilities managed by the government. If we want Twitter to be managed the same, we are free to do so. That may be the ultimate solution, but I'm not yet convinced.
The solution isn’t to nationalize social media, it’s to legislate that they be interoperable with other platforms. If you have an account on Facebook and Twitter you should be able to publish and read from both via an API. They can still ban people but you should be able to take your data seamlessly to another competing platform that is interoperable with a number of clients both official and independent. Utilities work because they follow common protocols, e.g. utility companies don’t require you to rewire your house and use a different voltage.
It's more about Internet infrastructure itself.
Maybe you could compare AWS to a haulage company, the equivalent of trucks distributing the newspapers. If Parler were to buy their own 'trucks' (servers), would they be able to drive freely on the 'roads' of the Internet? Or would nobody be willing to provide them a connection?
Maybe you could compare AWS to a haulage company, the equivalent of trucks distributing the newspapers. If Parler were to buy their own 'trucks' (servers), would they be able to drive freely on the 'roads' of the Internet? Or would nobody be willing to provide them a connection?
> But to distribute them, you first need to build your own road network, you're banned from our roads.
This argument is absurd and I feel in bad faith. We have public roads and you are free to travel on them to distribute your flyers. You still need permission to enter the premises of private owners though if you want to solicit or leave your property (flyer) on their property.
This argument is absurd and I feel in bad faith. We have public roads and you are free to travel on them to distribute your flyers. You still need permission to enter the premises of private owners though if you want to solicit or leave your property (flyer) on their property.
That's the point. Kicking Parler off AWS is not like Penguin refusing to publish your book, it's like MAN forbidding people to deliver your self-printed books in one of their vans. Well if MAN had a monopoly on delivery vans.
Didn’t Parler go ahead and do exactly what you recommended?
No, they didn't.
Parler set up a web site on AMAZON's platform, and it was subsequently shut down. If they had created their own platform with their own servers, they would still be running today.
No, they didn't.
Parler set up a web site on AMAZON's platform, and it was subsequently shut down. If they had created their own platform with their own servers, they would still be running today.
Can you not see you’re suggesting segregation of the entire Internet?
What happens when registrars cut them off? No DNS routing for them until they build their own registrar? Will the point at which the segregated internet’s join become a DMZ guarded by both factions?
This entire app, and business, was shut down for a few bad actors. Traditionally you subpoena for info, but cancel culture stepped in again.
What happens when registrars cut them off? No DNS routing for them until they build their own registrar? Will the point at which the segregated internet’s join become a DMZ guarded by both factions?
This entire app, and business, was shut down for a few bad actors. Traditionally you subpoena for info, but cancel culture stepped in again.
But that requires an ISP and DNS (which are also often censorious).
That technology is not secret, they are “free” to build their own. Like every other company that builds broadcast platforms, if they want to play, they’ve got to pay.
But Parler won't need to do this - there are plenty of hosts who aren't going to join in with the coordinated effort to silence the speech of those who aren't on the 'correct' side. Info Wars and OAN are still on the internet.
Surely, if they wanted to, they could buy cloud compute resources from a company based outside the US. Why must they be on Amazon just for access to its web services platform?
With net neutrality, they would not need to own an ISP. They might need to find a friendly place to host their servers though.
So Parlar can bifurcate and build their own ISP/DNS.
> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to force others to listen or post your recorded message.
I don't think anyone, from Trump to Alex Jones, is asking to be able to force people to follow them on Twitter or youtube. But they should have a right to be there, and talk to people that have chosen to follow them, that's quite a different thing.
I don't think anyone, from Trump to Alex Jones, is asking to be able to force people to follow them on Twitter or youtube. But they should have a right to be there, and talk to people that have chosen to follow them, that's quite a different thing.
I just mean that having some kind of platform is important to the definition of speech, since it involves communicating over some medium. I don't necessarily mean platforms as in Twitter or Facebook or what-have-you. And I would agree about the town square analogy - my concern is that it falls apart at the Internet since it's all privately owned.
“Just because private company is allowed to do something, doesn’t mean they should” - so then put that up for public debate. I think we did, Section 230 in the context of posting digital content.
It boggles mind that we are trying to keep a high ground on free speech while the rug is being yanked away from our bottoms.
+ Free Speech. Not when you have millions deluded, angry, violent and ready to use any means to incite violence, take down gov, threaten governors and are trigger happy to exercise 2nd amendment rights. I’m terrified of these people.
I get it. Free speech is important, especially when you disagree with someone. This is how society progresses. You can have the free speech still, just make sure you don’t rally up people to take up arms on bogus claims. They’ve had their free speech chances to contest in court, have peaceful debates and be civilized.
r/conservative, as much as you disagree with them, is still ok and fine. They’re respectful for the most part.
It boggles mind that we are trying to keep a high ground on free speech while the rug is being yanked away from our bottoms.
+ Free Speech. Not when you have millions deluded, angry, violent and ready to use any means to incite violence, take down gov, threaten governors and are trigger happy to exercise 2nd amendment rights. I’m terrified of these people.
I get it. Free speech is important, especially when you disagree with someone. This is how society progresses. You can have the free speech still, just make sure you don’t rally up people to take up arms on bogus claims. They’ve had their free speech chances to contest in court, have peaceful debates and be civilized.
r/conservative, as much as you disagree with them, is still ok and fine. They’re respectful for the most part.
I was more sympathetic towards Parler until I saw a screenshot of a post calling journalists "soft targets" that are "fair game" and to be "stopped by any means necessary."
My understanding is that in Parler, posts are moderated by a jury of five peers. But if that jury is just as extreme as the poster advocating murdering journalists, what then?
Section 230 doesn't provide a safe harbor for criminal speech like advocating or planning violence. There has to be a second moderation channel to keep that from happening, or Parler should be liable as an accessory for violent crimes planned in the open on its platform.
I'd wash my hands of them if they're that negligent.
My understanding is that in Parler, posts are moderated by a jury of five peers. But if that jury is just as extreme as the poster advocating murdering journalists, what then?
Section 230 doesn't provide a safe harbor for criminal speech like advocating or planning violence. There has to be a second moderation channel to keep that from happening, or Parler should be liable as an accessory for violent crimes planned in the open on its platform.
I'd wash my hands of them if they're that negligent.
Was that screenshot legit or fake news? I don’t believe anything these days. If it’s legit, was the post taken down. That kind of text sounds actually illegal and against the Parler TOS
Also a screenshot doesn't mean anything. I am sure you can take millions of screenshots of people saying bad things on facebook. It doesn't mean that the platform is not moderated, just that the moderation didn't catch those specific examples. If we apply that standard, twitter and facebook must be closed immediately, no remedy.
That would be wonderful!
You should check r/ParlerWatch, plenty of screenshots without account names blurred so you can go verify yourself that the DC Capitol raid was planned months in advance and violence was in the plan. They're currently planning a round 2 and 3 for the 17th and the inauguration. From what I've seen it's not being removed. Most posts are not from unknown low follower accounts.
I don’t get how you can cry for free speech and ban anyone on the app who doesn’t follow the party line. There is no arguing or debating with these people.
I got banned from the Donald subreddit for saying the aclu does a lot of good things. It wasn’t spam. It wasn’t even controversial.
I got banned from the Donald subreddit for saying the aclu does a lot of good things. It wasn’t spam. It wasn’t even controversial.
Congrats, you've discovered doublethink. As someone who values rationality, it truly is maddening to witness. But extremists don't use words like we use words.
Doublethink is more common with extremists regardless of bent, but what we are seeing is doublethink and eager consumption of propaganda, along with gaslighting the other side and accusing them of exactly the same. It is toxic and wears you down.
Doublethink is more common with extremists regardless of bent, but what we are seeing is doublethink and eager consumption of propaganda, along with gaslighting the other side and accusing them of exactly the same. It is toxic and wears you down.
Banning people who are calling for blowing up the capitol and hanging various politicians from the walls of the capitol building is not banning free speech, it's banning threats and treason. There's a huge difference. No one is banning a person for cursing a politician, they're banning threats of bodily harm of journalists, public figures, etc. Parler needs to moderate that garbage and they aren't. AWS shouldn't have to host that stuff in the name of free speech.
I got banned there in 2016 when someone said the left was being hypocritical for criticizing Trump’s call to make flag burning illegal but ignoring that Clinton had authored a bill to criminalize flag burning when she was a Senator.
My offense? I looked up the bill, which did indeed criminalize some flag burning and was indeed authored by her, and posted that in a comment there, along with the official bill summary and a link to the full bill.
I got banned from /r/conservative for agreeing with Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush on some issues, favoring a market based approach over regulation. I did not point explicitly mention Reagan or Bush, and the moderators nailed me for these far left opinions!
My offense? I looked up the bill, which did indeed criminalize some flag burning and was indeed authored by her, and posted that in a comment there, along with the official bill summary and a link to the full bill.
I got banned from /r/conservative for agreeing with Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush on some issues, favoring a market based approach over regulation. I did not point explicitly mention Reagan or Bush, and the moderators nailed me for these far left opinions!
Do you have links to any of these posts?
I miss 5-6 years ago when "fake news" wasn't a thing and that term didn't exist in the mainstream conversation.
Are you suggesting "fake news" doesn't exist? That people shouldn't be skeptical of information regardless if it comes from the mainstream media?
Perhaps OP means that the term itself is confusing and emotionally laden. It was popularized by liars baselessly accusing the mainstream media that their stories were made up.
Does "fake news" refer to news stories that are complete made up? Contain mistakes? Or that are true but that you simply don't like? Or does "fake news" refer to the act of baselessly accusing a reasonably researched story that in fact is probably accurate?
Does "fake news" refer to news stories that are complete made up? Contain mistakes? Or that are true but that you simply don't like? Or does "fake news" refer to the act of baselessly accusing a reasonably researched story that in fact is probably accurate?
One of Trump's greatest successes has been to co-opt the term away from it's first popularized meaning: fabricated articles created (e.g. by a teenager in Macedonia) for the primary purpose of capturing views and add clicks.
Ignoring whether Trump was abusing the term "fake news" or calling out something no one has before, it's kind of amazing how that term has taken off.
I'm not in the US and people are incorporating that term in their everyday language.
I'm not in the US and people are incorporating that term in their everyday language.
Any institution small or large is capable of fake news or lying by omission. Many of the large institutions are at the will of their corporate sponsors or the political leaning of their consumers/subscribers. The bottom line is all that matters.
Actually I know I do when I say it. Mainstream news is fine if you avoid the opinion stuff. Just approach it looking for details and facts and weed out the opinion. Trump ruined "fake news" as a descriptor by claiming that all news other than news which supports him was "fake news"
Sorry, there is always fake news in the world until we have a journalism uprising and awakening.
I meant that it was exceptionally rare to call anything fake news until some evidence was provided. That trust in journalism has been systematically eroded by President Trump and his party.
I meant that it was exceptionally rare to call anything fake news until some evidence was provided. That trust in journalism has been systematically eroded by President Trump and his party.
Rather than calling something fake news, you could sign up for a parker account yourself and have a browser of the content present there to make your own opinion. Calling something fake news is the equivalent of acusing everyone who disagrees with you an alt right scum.
I did not call it fake news. I asked if what you saw was legit or fake news. I was expecting your answer would be “yes I looked into it” or “no I’m not sure”
I’ve just seen so many online lies I don’t trust anything any more. I am not accusing you of anything.
I’ve just seen so many online lies I don’t trust anything any more. I am not accusing you of anything.
Parler does have the TOS that you speak of, but the Parler CEO also says that Parler is “just a neutral town square that just adheres to the law” and leaves moderation to volunteers and takes no responsibility for what’s posted.
In other words, the TOS is effectively useless.
In other words, the TOS is effectively useless.
> My understanding is that in Parler, posts are moderated by a jury of five peers. But if that jury is just as extreme as the poster advocating murdering journalists, what then?
We’ve entered new territory. When you look at analogues to this situation, Islamic radicals, mass shooters in America being mostly white men, both of the broader groups (Muslims, white Americans) can easily say those fringe actors are the 0.000001%. Even those that might support the fringe actors in the broader group would still only represent a small percentage.
The rioters in this case, if they are the fringe of the broader Republican base, visually looked significant. This is nothing like ‘oh, yeah that’s just one crazy nut’. In the broader group, the percentage that sympathizes with this fringe is high, with the most official accounting of this number being the actual 75 million Americans that voted for Trump.
We are in no way talking about a fringe imho.
We’ve entered new territory. When you look at analogues to this situation, Islamic radicals, mass shooters in America being mostly white men, both of the broader groups (Muslims, white Americans) can easily say those fringe actors are the 0.000001%. Even those that might support the fringe actors in the broader group would still only represent a small percentage.
The rioters in this case, if they are the fringe of the broader Republican base, visually looked significant. This is nothing like ‘oh, yeah that’s just one crazy nut’. In the broader group, the percentage that sympathizes with this fringe is high, with the most official accounting of this number being the actual 75 million Americans that voted for Trump.
We are in no way talking about a fringe imho.
The one thing that I’ve noticed on the HN convos is that space is being made for parler and those that use it, unintentionally.
It seems that not many people have been to parler, and very few links to screen shots or other evidence is available.
Unfortunately - and this really is just what usually happens - the noble arguments for free speech get converted into a shield to add respectability to parler and hate speech.
And if the trend continues, more political or even subversive content starts appearing in the sub, at just the angle to take advantage of the blind spots of forum goers.
It’s happening here, I’m seeming that dumb path finding algo for indoctrination playing out over the past three threads.
It seems that not many people have been to parler, and very few links to screen shots or other evidence is available.
Unfortunately - and this really is just what usually happens - the noble arguments for free speech get converted into a shield to add respectability to parler and hate speech.
And if the trend continues, more political or even subversive content starts appearing in the sub, at just the angle to take advantage of the blind spots of forum goers.
It’s happening here, I’m seeming that dumb path finding algo for indoctrination playing out over the past three threads.
I had a conversation with a friend about this, I asked him what Parler is like and on a scale of 1-10 how extreme it was. He said it depended and that there was some perfectly normal content but that the number of clicks to get to a more radical place and thus start to see the extreme side and potentially be radicalized was much shorter than say Reddit. His supporting evidence that one of the first suggested places to follow you see when you signup is the OANN.
I'm not personally comfortable with the easy bake radicalizing from that so to speak and is what pushed me over the edge in being okay with the ban. We wouldn't tolerate a place where it was easy to breed other types of extremism why is this any different was my thought.
I'm not personally comfortable with the easy bake radicalizing from that so to speak and is what pushed me over the edge in being okay with the ban. We wouldn't tolerate a place where it was easy to breed other types of extremism why is this any different was my thought.
The sad part is that people give it the benefit of doubt when they hear this.
They’ll translate it as “it’s not that bad”.
“It’s only a few steps away from OANN”
“That means the first bunch of stuff is normal people talking about conservative talking points.”
“Sure, not a place I’d like to hang out, but I’d see why it may need protection even if I may disagree, that’s what I’m trained to do.”
Yeah no.
Parler actively removes people who bring in the “liberal” point of view.
I’ll even grant, that removal by ideology is a necessary tool for political moderation.
But that still means that parler is an echo chamber, amplifying beliefs that the “election was stolen”, “democrats will destroy the country.”
They’ll translate it as “it’s not that bad”.
“It’s only a few steps away from OANN”
“That means the first bunch of stuff is normal people talking about conservative talking points.”
“Sure, not a place I’d like to hang out, but I’d see why it may need protection even if I may disagree, that’s what I’m trained to do.”
Yeah no.
Parler actively removes people who bring in the “liberal” point of view.
I’ll even grant, that removal by ideology is a necessary tool for political moderation.
But that still means that parler is an echo chamber, amplifying beliefs that the “election was stolen”, “democrats will destroy the country.”
> Parler actively removes people who bring in the “liberal” point of view.
Isn’t this what is happening to conservative voices? Further do you have evidence of this?
Do you know there’s gaming and other non political content on Parler? It was born out of politics so the majority of content is still focused around it.
Why don’t you see it for yourself instead of letting your imagination run wild?
I have been on Parler, briefly to validate all the claims of constant, unabated, hate speech and found nothing of the sort. Will I continue to use it? Unlikely, but I don’t use social media. I wouldn’t call it hotbed of right wing extremists though.
Isn’t this what is happening to conservative voices? Further do you have evidence of this?
Do you know there’s gaming and other non political content on Parler? It was born out of politics so the majority of content is still focused around it.
Why don’t you see it for yourself instead of letting your imagination run wild?
I have been on Parler, briefly to validate all the claims of constant, unabated, hate speech and found nothing of the sort. Will I continue to use it? Unlikely, but I don’t use social media. I wouldn’t call it hotbed of right wing extremists though.
So sounds exactly like Twitter then ? I feel that most of HN has never visited the fringe ultra-liberal anarchist side of Twitter. Of-course the stuff they say never comes in the news 24x7.
Basically, a lot of folks are asking: Why are we censored, when they aren't ? Why the extraordinary double standards? When someone talks about peaceful protesting and is banned for incitement for violence, why is someone calling for explicit murder allowed on Twitter (with accompanying graphical images).
Apply the rules equally, or not at all.
Basically, a lot of folks are asking: Why are we censored, when they aren't ? Why the extraordinary double standards? When someone talks about peaceful protesting and is banned for incitement for violence, why is someone calling for explicit murder allowed on Twitter (with accompanying graphical images).
Apply the rules equally, or not at all.
How many of the people attending the protest actually entered or attempted to enter the Capitol building? Out of those that did how many were actively seeking to cause trouble and how many were just following the crowd and looking around? If you look at the facts for yourself and don’t rely on other people’s opinions you’ll see more clearly.
If you pick your photos carefully, you can pretend that this was a bunch of goofs who accidentally got into the Capitol. This video was eye-opening to me: https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/01/09/officer-crushed-in-...
See this clearly: https://youtu.be/182JKOm1LY0
You can see the “violent few” drag and beat an officer to death. You can see and hear the surrounding mob cheer themselves on. So how many people need to witness a murder in progress before doing anything about it?
You can see the “violent few” drag and beat an officer to death. You can see and hear the surrounding mob cheer themselves on. So how many people need to witness a murder in progress before doing anything about it?
It was a pretty small entrance.
I doubt if all Americans that voted for Trump are sympathetic to the Capitol riots. Polls showed that the majority of Republicans were against them.
Yougov showed 45% support among Republicans: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio....
PBS/Marist poll, only 18%: https://thehill.com/homenews/news/533452-poll-18-percent-of-....
Yougov showed 45% support among Republicans: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio....
PBS/Marist poll, only 18%: https://thehill.com/homenews/news/533452-poll-18-percent-of-....
This isn’t an election or popularity contest; 18% of Republicans in favor of armed insurrection and coup is quite significant, ranging into the millions of people.
If you label it a 'coup' well of course that sounds terrible. If you believe the election was stolen, then the other side perpetrated the 'coup.'
I don't see either side making any effect towards compromise.
I don't see either side making any effect towards compromise.
> If you believe the election was stolen
At this point I have to ask, what compromise do you suggest be made to these people? How do you compromise with people that were shouting "Hang Mike Pence" in front of some home-made gallows?
At this point I have to ask, what compromise do you suggest be made to these people? How do you compromise with people that were shouting "Hang Mike Pence" in front of some home-made gallows?
A compromise would have been performing a transparent audit in the disputed states, especially in counties where the counting stopped and resumed in the middle of the night.
You know, actually listen to and address their complaints instead of just saying 'you're a crazy conspiracy nut.'
You know, actually listen to and address their complaints instead of just saying 'you're a crazy conspiracy nut.'
There’s nothing to “audit?” They stopped and then resumed the next morning.
Believe it or not the elections law wasn’t created in October 2020; they’re a well-regulated and secure process. As evinced by no one being able to present any evidence of widespread fraudulent behavior even in states with GOP legislatures and Secretaries of State.
Believe it or not the elections law wasn’t created in October 2020; they’re a well-regulated and secure process. As evinced by no one being able to present any evidence of widespread fraudulent behavior even in states with GOP legislatures and Secretaries of State.
There's plenty to audit. Does the number of votes match the number of voters? Are there chain of custody records. Are there envelopes for the mailed ballots? Are all the mailed ballots actually registered voters, and were they actually mailed? Furthermore, what mechanism was used to ensure that voters did not double vote by voting both in person and via absentee?
There's been reports of thousands of votes not being counted or added to the transmitted counts in various jurisdictions. That means at least part of the system broke down.
There's been reports of thousands of votes not being counted or added to the transmitted counts in various jurisdictions. That means at least part of the system broke down.
> A compromise would have been performing a transparent audit in the disputed states, especially in counties where the counting stopped and resumed in the middle of the night.
But it looks like this did happen? One example[1].
> You know, actually listen to and address their complaints instead of just saying 'you're a crazy conspiracy nut.'
There were attempts to address their complaints. Re ounts and audits took place. Those recounts and audits didn't change the result or uncover any further evidence of fraud. This didn't align with Trump's claims so his base dismissed it as lies. The interesting thing coming out of this is that they're now turning on the rest of the republican party who accept what their own observers are telling them.
I'd also like to point out that this was all happening while Trump was privately pressuring the Georgia secretary of state to 'find' him enough votes to win[2].
Uncovering fraud was never the motivation here, it's a cynical attempt at destroying trust in the election process in order to corrupt the result.
[1]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio...
[2]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/10/trump-call-g...
But it looks like this did happen? One example[1].
> You know, actually listen to and address their complaints instead of just saying 'you're a crazy conspiracy nut.'
There were attempts to address their complaints. Re ounts and audits took place. Those recounts and audits didn't change the result or uncover any further evidence of fraud. This didn't align with Trump's claims so his base dismissed it as lies. The interesting thing coming out of this is that they're now turning on the rest of the republican party who accept what their own observers are telling them.
I'd also like to point out that this was all happening while Trump was privately pressuring the Georgia secretary of state to 'find' him enough votes to win[2].
Uncovering fraud was never the motivation here, it's a cynical attempt at destroying trust in the election process in order to corrupt the result.
[1]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio...
[2]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/10/trump-call-g...
> There were attempts to address their complaints.
The complaints were not heard without first attempting to call to shame an entire group of 75mil people.
And your second source can be read a different way: “find the votes that existed that you shred”, he’s not saying make up the votes, he’s saying find the ones he believes they fraudulently shred. Part of the divide in this country is taking something like this, twisting the words to make a sensational title that’s then thrown at every moderate or conservative. Think about how much this has happened over the last 4 years.
The complaints were not heard without first attempting to call to shame an entire group of 75mil people.
And your second source can be read a different way: “find the votes that existed that you shred”, he’s not saying make up the votes, he’s saying find the ones he believes they fraudulently shred. Part of the divide in this country is taking something like this, twisting the words to make a sensational title that’s then thrown at every moderate or conservative. Think about how much this has happened over the last 4 years.
I’ll also add that they did this without a good enough reason too.
I know this is going to go against the media narrative about how reprehensible the riot was, and the reverence we must pay to Congress, but for the entirety of 2005-2020, Congress had record low approval ratings.
Last week we just visually saw the reality of storming congress (you may not even know it’s possible in your perceptions until you literally see it).
Well, people just saw it’s possible. Either base can find a lot more reasons to rile themselves up and go down there. So, I really don’t buy that Americans will by and large condemn the act, especially on the Republican side. Those polls are for sure under-tallied, Congress (and now particularly, a Democratic congress) is way too hated by the agitated right-wing, the once war mongering Bush nationalists, to the reimagined tea-party anti-Obama coalition, to the re-imagined anti-authoritarian Trump cohort, to the newly re-imagined ___________ (militant?).
Not a fringe my dear friends, an evolving force.
I know this is going to go against the media narrative about how reprehensible the riot was, and the reverence we must pay to Congress, but for the entirety of 2005-2020, Congress had record low approval ratings.
Last week we just visually saw the reality of storming congress (you may not even know it’s possible in your perceptions until you literally see it).
Well, people just saw it’s possible. Either base can find a lot more reasons to rile themselves up and go down there. So, I really don’t buy that Americans will by and large condemn the act, especially on the Republican side. Those polls are for sure under-tallied, Congress (and now particularly, a Democratic congress) is way too hated by the agitated right-wing, the once war mongering Bush nationalists, to the reimagined tea-party anti-Obama coalition, to the re-imagined anti-authoritarian Trump cohort, to the newly re-imagined ___________ (militant?).
Not a fringe my dear friends, an evolving force.
Did you feel the same way when Michael Moorcock said the same thing on Twitter about cops ? No bans for him though.
our constitution specifically protects the ability to discuss its own overthrow (although of course we also have by far the largest military and intelligence operation in the world to suppress any real threats, which last week very much was not). the framers realized that this was a key and fundamental aspect of free speech, and exactly the method by which we can foster discussions of change rather than via violence.
that is, your terror and mistrust are misplaced. let people talk, even disgustingly. let the world change (progress) in response. that's much better than bottled-up anger that explodes unpredictably and fractally.
that is, your terror and mistrust are misplaced. let people talk, even disgustingly. let the world change (progress) in response. that's much better than bottled-up anger that explodes unpredictably and fractally.
It does I agree, but when talk changes to action (in the recent case violence) what do we do then? We've seen what happens when a minority fringe extremist group is able to take control of a country, on many occasions now. I in good conscience can't see a world where if we failed to stop it earlier I would be able to sleep with the consequences because we let them talk it out in protection of freedom of speech purism. Would it be right to let that happen and then spend years and lives having to re capture our government?
Obviously these are all hypothetical scenarios and questions, but if the mob a few days ago had any aim and organization they would have clearly seized our government and they're being whipped into a frenzy by things like Parler to try it again on the 17th so I'm told.
Obviously these are all hypothetical scenarios and questions, but if the mob a few days ago had any aim and organization they would have clearly seized our government and they're being whipped into a frenzy by things like Parler to try it again on the 17th so I'm told.
the federal government isn’t a building or a group of congresspeople. it’s the power we collectively cast as a populace. there was no chance those few hundred people would overthrow our government that way. the real threat is the power concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. that’s how we go from democracy to oligarchy to dictatorship. that’s the threat model. stop fearing the disorderly and the disenfranchised like the powerful want you to (effectuated via the media gaze and political rhetoric), but rather focus on how to disperse power and wealth more widely (as the framers intended) to keep that primary threat at bay.
I fear the installment of an autocrat. Whether through slow corruption from the inside in politics, through concentration of wealth or something such as the event from last week. The difference, in the event of last week, was the reality of that happening could have been hastened immensely.
I don't like our current system, but the slow decay gives us the ability to work towards the aims which you have stated on more preferable terms.
I don't like our current system, but the slow decay gives us the ability to work towards the aims which you have stated on more preferable terms.
no, that's exactly the misguided fear that deflects concern from where it should be placed. last week was nothing. it was a small and relatively powerless group of people lashing out at an increasingly captive system. that we can no longer mostly elect non-millionaire presidents and congresspeople is the real threat.
It was still very much a thing. A symptom of many other even more problematic things.
The sitting president directly used its office, power, platform to try to stop a democratic process, and launch/command an attack against a different branch of the government (the legislature). Even if that attack was purely symbolic. (... though calling it symbolic while people died is not entirely right.)
A radicalized subgroup of the fanaticized Trump cult used force to thwart a democratic process they deemed fake/undemocratic. And they managed to successfully pause that process for considerable amount of time.
Especially the stark contrast between the interaction of police and Trump cultists compared to police and BLM protesters points to an other serious problem.
...
That powerless group of people includes the sitting president, a bunch of senators and representatives, and they had a very very real chance of winning the election.
That same powerless group, at least a part of it that choose to do so, managed to basically stroll into the Capitol, loot it, and go away unharmed. (They got tear gassed eventually.) And this group included an elected state representative, various police officers, veterans, lawyers, and other not exactly powerless members of society.
This is about status, which is about perception. Conservative ideology is about social order, the status quo. This 'powerless group' wants to maintain their power, despite the results of the democratic process - which is designed to measure exactly that peacefully.
This is very much a thing. It's a serious ongoing thing. It has been ongoing forever though. And it's going to go on for ... well, probably forever too, but that only means other will have to expend energy to actively push that status quo toward a more fair equilibrium (or set-point).
The sitting president directly used its office, power, platform to try to stop a democratic process, and launch/command an attack against a different branch of the government (the legislature). Even if that attack was purely symbolic. (... though calling it symbolic while people died is not entirely right.)
A radicalized subgroup of the fanaticized Trump cult used force to thwart a democratic process they deemed fake/undemocratic. And they managed to successfully pause that process for considerable amount of time.
Especially the stark contrast between the interaction of police and Trump cultists compared to police and BLM protesters points to an other serious problem.
...
That powerless group of people includes the sitting president, a bunch of senators and representatives, and they had a very very real chance of winning the election.
That same powerless group, at least a part of it that choose to do so, managed to basically stroll into the Capitol, loot it, and go away unharmed. (They got tear gassed eventually.) And this group included an elected state representative, various police officers, veterans, lawyers, and other not exactly powerless members of society.
This is about status, which is about perception. Conservative ideology is about social order, the status quo. This 'powerless group' wants to maintain their power, despite the results of the democratic process - which is designed to measure exactly that peacefully.
This is very much a thing. It's a serious ongoing thing. It has been ongoing forever though. And it's going to go on for ... well, probably forever too, but that only means other will have to expend energy to actively push that status quo toward a more fair equilibrium (or set-point).
you're confusing groups and events to lay out a conflated narrative filled with pointed, fearful language. the protesters who occupied the capitol were relatively powerless. those are the people we, as other relatively powerless people, should not fear. the politicians (and lawyers and media) whipping up fear and frenzy based on that situation should be viewed very skeptically. those protesters had no power to overthrow our government, in this or any other conceivable action (because of the foresight of our founders as enshrined and amended in our constitution).
politicians, however, are in such a position, though even that is a relatively remote possibility. luckily trump had no chance of retaining the presidency, by force or otherwise, mostly because he's too self-absorbed, and frankly stupid, to effectively consolidate power like xi jinping or putin did.
politicians, however, are in such a position, though even that is a relatively remote possibility. luckily trump had no chance of retaining the presidency, by force or otherwise, mostly because he's too self-absorbed, and frankly stupid, to effectively consolidate power like xi jinping or putin did.
> + Free Speech. Not when you have millions deluded, angry, violent and ready to use any means to incite violence, take down gov, threaten governors and are trigger happy to exercise 2nd amendment rights. I’m terrified of these people.
As a non American coming back from the holidaysplaying catch up on all this,
When did BLM/Antifa start liking to exercise their 2nd amendment rights by the millions? I know a lot of them were but I don't think it was anywhere more than thousands.
As a non American coming back from the holidaysplaying catch up on all this,
When did BLM/Antifa start liking to exercise their 2nd amendment rights by the millions? I know a lot of them were but I don't think it was anywhere more than thousands.
> Not when you have millions deluded, angry, violent and ready to use any means to incite violence, take down gov, threaten governors
That's exactly what our tyrannical Russian government says about those who don't like Putin being in power for 20+ years. Thus, they limit our rights for free speech online, prosecute for extremism, deny us rights to peacefully gather and protest.
If you Americans go down this path any further, you'll too find yourself living under the tyrannical dictatorship no better than ours.
Oh, unfortunately, unlike you, we don't have 2nd amendment rights, so actually rebelling is harder. So I suggest you clinging to your guns as strong as you can: all points that you are going to need them.
That's exactly what our tyrannical Russian government says about those who don't like Putin being in power for 20+ years. Thus, they limit our rights for free speech online, prosecute for extremism, deny us rights to peacefully gather and protest.
If you Americans go down this path any further, you'll too find yourself living under the tyrannical dictatorship no better than ours.
Oh, unfortunately, unlike you, we don't have 2nd amendment rights, so actually rebelling is harder. So I suggest you clinging to your guns as strong as you can: all points that you are going to need them.
I find the whole argument that 2nd amendment rights support rebellion a bit weird. (UK speaker here.) The US government has marines, tanks, and advanced weaponry. Even the police are tooled up to the 9s, partly because of those very 2nd amendment rights. Is there any case of a citizen militia successfully using force to overthrow a modern state with a well-equipped, loyal army?
I don't know how it would play out, but it's worth noting that to overthrow someone stronger than you you don't always need a bigger gun. You need to be more willing to use your gun than they are.
The US government has nukes, but they still got their asses handed to them in Vietnam and struggled in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's true that if the feds truly want to squash an uprising they have the means to do it. But do they have the will to do it? At what cost? I can imagine a scenario where they'd be willing to use enough force to subdue unarmed citizens by not enough to subdue an armed uprising, which could escalate to civil war.
In short: there exists a scenario in which the second amendment enables the citizens to resist the government to an extent that they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Whether this is a good or bad thing is something you can decide for yourself.
The US government has nukes, but they still got their asses handed to them in Vietnam and struggled in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's true that if the feds truly want to squash an uprising they have the means to do it. But do they have the will to do it? At what cost? I can imagine a scenario where they'd be willing to use enough force to subdue unarmed citizens by not enough to subdue an armed uprising, which could escalate to civil war.
In short: there exists a scenario in which the second amendment enables the citizens to resist the government to an extent that they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Whether this is a good or bad thing is something you can decide for yourself.
The unarmed civilians were repressed over summer, sure, but the government still largely capitulated in the end.
See insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now assume half the military itself is sympathetic to the “rebels” and the government would have a difficult time containing any real insurgency.
The US government has made a lot of enemies over the decades, many of whom would be more than willing to provide modern weapons and explosives to the insurgents.
Though the US overwhelmed the Iraqi military quickly and decisively, it was a decade of constant roadside bombs, made with materials easily smuggled into the country and implemented with minimal training, that eventually wore down US morale and willingness to fight.
Finally, the US military is such a big business here, a good percentage of the population has had professional military training and combat experience.
Now assume half the military itself is sympathetic to the “rebels” and the government would have a difficult time containing any real insurgency.
The US government has made a lot of enemies over the decades, many of whom would be more than willing to provide modern weapons and explosives to the insurgents.
Though the US overwhelmed the Iraqi military quickly and decisively, it was a decade of constant roadside bombs, made with materials easily smuggled into the country and implemented with minimal training, that eventually wore down US morale and willingness to fight.
Finally, the US military is such a big business here, a good percentage of the population has had professional military training and combat experience.
This does not quite fit your bill of "successfully using force", but the 2014 Bundy Standoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff) was an interesting example of armed citizen "militia" facing off against armed federal agents who ultimately backed down. It does not seem like a stretch to assume that a significant part of the BLM's decision calculus involved weighing the cost-benefit analysis of the gun-fight that would likely result from them trying to force the issue.
That being said, there are, of course, a bunch of other examples of armed conflicts with the government that do not turn out well for the "citizens" when the government decides to violently pursue its goals (1985 MOVE bombing, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc). But, I guess my point with all of this is that, for better or worse, the proliferation of guns in American society certainly does have an effect on the decision matrix of the government (even if the "citizen militia" ultimately does not stand a chance against a determined government response...
That being said, there are, of course, a bunch of other examples of armed conflicts with the government that do not turn out well for the "citizens" when the government decides to violently pursue its goals (1985 MOVE bombing, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc). But, I guess my point with all of this is that, for better or worse, the proliferation of guns in American society certainly does have an effect on the decision matrix of the government (even if the "citizen militia" ultimately does not stand a chance against a determined government response...
> the proliferation of guns in American society certainly does have an effect on the decision matrix of the government (even if the "citizen militia" ultimately does not stand a chance against a determined government response...
This is precisely the intended effect. Sure some wahoos think they could fully overthrow the military but for most it is about changing the calculus from "tyrannical takeover of unarmed populace with minimal resistance" to "uh oh, they are fighting back". This results in much more of a cause to rally around, feed into rebel propaganda, win over military members to the "just cause" which of course tips the balance, etc.
We saw what only a few hundreds of folks could do when parts of the normal defense are strangely absent. Imagine even a 30% defection.
This is precisely the intended effect. Sure some wahoos think they could fully overthrow the military but for most it is about changing the calculus from "tyrannical takeover of unarmed populace with minimal resistance" to "uh oh, they are fighting back". This results in much more of a cause to rally around, feed into rebel propaganda, win over military members to the "just cause" which of course tips the balance, etc.
We saw what only a few hundreds of folks could do when parts of the normal defense are strangely absent. Imagine even a 30% defection.
> Sure some wahoos think they could fully overthrow the military
If it was ever at that point, the military would not exist in its current form.
The "military" is not a monolith that would just suppress a revolt if it was that size and scope that it needed to. The Civil War in the U.S. had almost all of its Confederate soldiers come from the U.S. Army. The current leadership corps in the U.S. military is disproportionately Southern and conservative. They're not going to be going against their countrymen if it came to that, and no one is going to be nuking their own cities.
If it was ever at that point, the military would not exist in its current form.
The "military" is not a monolith that would just suppress a revolt if it was that size and scope that it needed to. The Civil War in the U.S. had almost all of its Confederate soldiers come from the U.S. Army. The current leadership corps in the U.S. military is disproportionately Southern and conservative. They're not going to be going against their countrymen if it came to that, and no one is going to be nuking their own cities.
Victory in such conflicts is won not by the side that can inflict more damage to the enemy, but by the one that can withstand more suffering. That's why US were unable to defeat Vietnam or USSR was unable to defeat Afghanistan.
[deleted]
Fat lot of good that did when fighting uneducated and untrained rice farmers and goat herders. Morale, knowledge of territory, civilian support and a conviction that you are fighting to defend your land and people will keep the fight going longer than even the most highly trained and funded military can.
The US's inability to win in Afghanistan and Vietnam are two examples. Also you just watched tens of thousands of people gather on the Capitol and take it over without any weapons. Imagine if millions of people had arrived and they were armed. How do you imagine a militia of millions armed with weapons would fare against an army that, with all of its advanced weaponry, took years to clamp down on ISIS and still hasn't fully succeeded?
Have you heard of Vietnam or Iraq?
> deny us rights to peacefully gather and protest.
The protest wasn't the issue. Storming the capitol is the problem.
> If you Americans go down this path any further, you'll too find yourself living under the tyrannical dictatorship no better than ours.
In this case, we are trying to prevent a tyrannical dictator.
I do agree though that we are possibly entering a damned if we do, damned if we don't territory.
The protest wasn't the issue. Storming the capitol is the problem.
> If you Americans go down this path any further, you'll too find yourself living under the tyrannical dictatorship no better than ours.
In this case, we are trying to prevent a tyrannical dictator.
I do agree though that we are possibly entering a damned if we do, damned if we don't territory.
Portland has been storming government buildings for months. Where do you think these people got the idea from?
Andy gno and timcast IRL has been streaming news on these attacks and riots for just as many many months.
The people that did this have been ignored for a very long time and been watching government do nothing while their lives get ripped apart by a virus and a mob of people calling them racist for being white.
You people dont seem to understand you are just as bubbled as the right is.
Andy gno and timcast IRL has been streaming news on these attacks and riots for just as many many months.
The people that did this have been ignored for a very long time and been watching government do nothing while their lives get ripped apart by a virus and a mob of people calling them racist for being white.
You people dont seem to understand you are just as bubbled as the right is.
Don't you dare equate BLM with the Right. BLM is responding to the very recent history of murder, oppression, and disenfranchisement by the police and government. It was captured repeatedly on brutal video this very year. And that's not even going back decades to the true horrors of history.
Whatever delusional "wrongs" the Right feels they've suffered from the government doesn't come close to comparing to that. In a true Godwin's Law type fashion, even attempting a comparison might be enough to end the argument.
Whatever delusional "wrongs" the Right feels they've suffered from the government doesn't come close to comparing to that. In a true Godwin's Law type fashion, even attempting a comparison might be enough to end the argument.
[deleted]
> Don't you dare equate BLM with the Right.
I didn't. You did.
I specifically said Portland, and yes, many of the people there involved were acting under the pretense of BLM but imo it was mostly just black bloc antifa being antifa. Portland antifa groups have a known and consistent history of this behavior, they've exploited BLM to amplify their attacks and they've used the support they received for doing so to embolden their actions.
They have literally stalked and murdered trump supporters in the street, they have shot people, and they have blinded and maimed anyone that gets in their way.
I didn't. You did.
I specifically said Portland, and yes, many of the people there involved were acting under the pretense of BLM but imo it was mostly just black bloc antifa being antifa. Portland antifa groups have a known and consistent history of this behavior, they've exploited BLM to amplify their attacks and they've used the support they received for doing so to embolden their actions.
They have literally stalked and murdered trump supporters in the street, they have shot people, and they have blinded and maimed anyone that gets in their way.
That last sentence doesn't sound credible. Who's been convicted of this? Who's trials are ongoing?
Blinding and maiming anyone that gets in their way sounds like they've blinded or maimed maybe 30k people in Portland by now?
Blinding and maiming anyone that gets in their way sounds like they've blinded or maimed maybe 30k people in Portland by now?
Look up Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl.
There are no trials. Reinoehl was shot dead by police.
Blinding is commonly attempted with high powered lasers. They aim them at police and anyone filming after they speak code words to tell you to stop filming the crime about to take place.
They're maim anyone that refuses to bow down and say blacklives matter if confronted. It's huge bully tactics.
There are no trials. Reinoehl was shot dead by police.
Blinding is commonly attempted with high powered lasers. They aim them at police and anyone filming after they speak code words to tell you to stop filming the crime about to take place.
They're maim anyone that refuses to bow down and say blacklives matter if confronted. It's huge bully tactics.
I'd imagine they got the idea from their anti lockdown friends who were storming legislatires before the George Floyd murder happened
Where did I say I supported people storming gov. buildings in Portland? Anyone destroying public or private property should be arrested. See how easy that is?
The whataboutisms/false equivalences from Trump supporters is annoying. I'm surprised you didn't bring up Hilary's emails, but I digress.
No one said the protest on the mall was a problem until Trump incited them to occupy the Capitol after priming the pump for months. Where are the politicians inciting the Portland protesters to insurrection?
The whataboutisms/false equivalences from Trump supporters is annoying. I'm surprised you didn't bring up Hilary's emails, but I digress.
No one said the protest on the mall was a problem until Trump incited them to occupy the Capitol after priming the pump for months. Where are the politicians inciting the Portland protesters to insurrection?
> Where did I say I supported people storming gov. buildings in Portland?
I didn't say you did, I was simply presenting the facts and reasons these people have for their actions I don't condone or agree with them. I understand them, I've followed along on both sides of this and nobody is talking to anyone, the left is calling people racist for even questioning them and cancelling leftist media on the regular for being "alt right" whatever the hell that means.
I'm just not surprised this is the outcome. What else can you expect?
It's not whataboutism, I'm not using my example to say they have the right to do what they did, what I'm pointing out is that you can't have sustained >100 day riots in portland with the government not being allowed to intervene and expect anything fucking less than an amplified repeat.
I didn't say you did, I was simply presenting the facts and reasons these people have for their actions I don't condone or agree with them. I understand them, I've followed along on both sides of this and nobody is talking to anyone, the left is calling people racist for even questioning them and cancelling leftist media on the regular for being "alt right" whatever the hell that means.
I'm just not surprised this is the outcome. What else can you expect?
It's not whataboutism, I'm not using my example to say they have the right to do what they did, what I'm pointing out is that you can't have sustained >100 day riots in portland with the government not being allowed to intervene and expect anything fucking less than an amplified repeat.
> Andy gno and timcast IRL has been streaming news on these attacks and riots for just as many many months.
Do people really believe anything those fake news spewing idiots say?
Do people really believe anything those fake news spewing idiots say?
Lots do. Tim has far too much bias for my tastes but I find it entertaining sometimes.
Andy gno is just a raw twitter feed full of riot porn. I don't think he's "fake news" and I'm glad he exists.
Andy gno is just a raw twitter feed full of riot porn. I don't think he's "fake news" and I'm glad he exists.
> That's exactly what our tyrannical Russian government says
Tyrannical governments will always find a way to abuse the legal system.
Most people would be in favour of laws against corruption, but corruption charges are one of the most common ways that autocrats use to suppress opposition.
Tyrannical governments will always find a way to abuse the legal system.
Most people would be in favour of laws against corruption, but corruption charges are one of the most common ways that autocrats use to suppress opposition.
Agreed. All dictators say this to their opposition - that they are just out to disrupt "peaceful" society. In China, "being peaced" is an internet slang that means silencing opposition by the government.
This isn't the same. I'd compare it with Putin having lost in the election and trying to prep his base to overturn the votes using lies and propaganda.
( Belgian opinion)
Umm, no. That is not comparable, because censorship is done by the winning side. The comparison you made would be valid if it was Trump who did the censorship, blocking Biden/Antifa/etc and purging them from all major news networks.
He is doing the censorship in areas where he has control, e.g. his own party: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2021/01/09/opinion...
You may mostly forget about Trump, he'll be out in a fortnight.
The problem now is your tech overlords, who have shown that they are very willing to silence and deplatform their political opponents, and who seems closely aligned with your new government. Good luck voting them out next time.
The problem now is your tech overlords, who have shown that they are very willing to silence and deplatform their political opponents, and who seems closely aligned with your new government. Good luck voting them out next time.
>The problem now is your tech overlords
No, it really isn't, and this fear-mongering rhetoric is extremely unhelpful. There is bi-partisan support for antitrust actions towards these companies. If trump's (former?) followers are serious about breaking up big tech, they should stop repeating trump's baseless lies about how big tech is some sort of satanic radical leftist communist conspiracy, and get it on these bi-partisan lawsuits.
No, it really isn't, and this fear-mongering rhetoric is extremely unhelpful. There is bi-partisan support for antitrust actions towards these companies. If trump's (former?) followers are serious about breaking up big tech, they should stop repeating trump's baseless lies about how big tech is some sort of satanic radical leftist communist conspiracy, and get it on these bi-partisan lawsuits.
This bipartisan support might evaporate overnight if they cut a deal with those currently in power, to keep them in power indefinitely by totally silencing and deplatforming their opposition, in exchange for going about unchecked. It's a win-win for both sides, so why wouldn't it happen. It certainly did happen in Russia, how is US any diffetent? Because you have honest and responsible politicians?
>Because you have honest and responsible politicians?
No it's actually the opposite -- by design, both parties are far too greedy and selfish and disorganized to do that on their own.
No it's actually the opposite -- by design, both parties are far too greedy and selfish and disorganized to do that on their own.
I might be tempted to agree with you if I didn't witness firsthand how business unifies with the one ruling party here in Russia.
Perhaps we can talk again about this in 5 years. I sincerely hope you are right, actually, but the realist in me begs to differ.
Perhaps we can talk again about this in 5 years. I sincerely hope you are right, actually, but the realist in me begs to differ.
Trump still has millions of emails of people to "contact" through his campaign.
A tech platform doesn't have political opponents.
And there were no issues with voting ( there were some on a very small scale where most seem to be an attempt for Trump).
A tech platform doesn't have political opponents.
And there were no issues with voting ( there were some on a very small scale where most seem to be an attempt for Trump).
> This is how society progresses.
Well, yes. That's why holding people accountable for the consequences of their speech is considered by many countries to be the right course of action...
Not all progress is positive.
I'm not going to have the argument that people have been having for hundreds of years about where to draw the line, but I will point at this QAnon nonsense, and suggest that it highlights how malleable downtrodden people are, and how dangerous allowing it might be.
Well, yes. That's why holding people accountable for the consequences of their speech is considered by many countries to be the right course of action...
Not all progress is positive.
I'm not going to have the argument that people have been having for hundreds of years about where to draw the line, but I will point at this QAnon nonsense, and suggest that it highlights how malleable downtrodden people are, and how dangerous allowing it might be.
> suggest that it highlights how malleable downtrodden people are, and how dangerous allowing it might be.
This is a good point. When Trump came to power populism was in full effect. There was Bernie on one side and Trump on the other of the same populism coin. Globalism, progress, etc... have left large swaths of the population behind.
I think many of these people know that QAnon spouts nonsense, but they are desperate in their personal situations. Healthcare is bankrupting people, they can't afford to send their kids to college if they can even afford kids, and housing has become out of reach for many. Until the downtrodden are addressed, QAnon isn't going anywhere.
This is a good point. When Trump came to power populism was in full effect. There was Bernie on one side and Trump on the other of the same populism coin. Globalism, progress, etc... have left large swaths of the population behind.
I think many of these people know that QAnon spouts nonsense, but they are desperate in their personal situations. Healthcare is bankrupting people, they can't afford to send their kids to college if they can even afford kids, and housing has become out of reach for many. Until the downtrodden are addressed, QAnon isn't going anywhere.
It's not about real financial problems. There's that too, but people in that situation don't spend days protesting, they usually work a lot or are looking for, or do something that helps them escape their problems.
QAnon, fascism, conservative ideology all have "social order" in common. QAnon of course drives it up to 11+, it's a full blown doomsday cult, with Trump being some kind of figurehead. And there's always something that threatens the status quo, their place in society. Immigrants, globalization, China, muslims, mexicans, antifa, gays, transgender frogs, liberal elites, uppity n....s.
Recommended long, but very insightful video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44
Naturally facts don't matter. You mentioned globalism, which indeed displaced many people from jobs, but this has always been ongoing. A hundred years ago this change was even more drastic. But back then this wasn't "weaponized". (Then the unions came, but then they too faded as technological changes dispersed big groups of homogeneous workers.) And now modern political parties try to play on these identities. (Mostly through candidates, as they locally present themselves, and naturally try to mobilize people.)
QAnon, fascism, conservative ideology all have "social order" in common. QAnon of course drives it up to 11+, it's a full blown doomsday cult, with Trump being some kind of figurehead. And there's always something that threatens the status quo, their place in society. Immigrants, globalization, China, muslims, mexicans, antifa, gays, transgender frogs, liberal elites, uppity n....s.
Recommended long, but very insightful video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44
Naturally facts don't matter. You mentioned globalism, which indeed displaced many people from jobs, but this has always been ongoing. A hundred years ago this change was even more drastic. But back then this wasn't "weaponized". (Then the unions came, but then they too faded as technological changes dispersed big groups of homogeneous workers.) And now modern political parties try to play on these identities. (Mostly through candidates, as they locally present themselves, and naturally try to mobilize people.)
Yes, progress is positive, it is otherwise called regress.
It's not black and white, progress for one may seem like regress for another.
You can move in a wrong direction without moving backwards. I agree progress is not the correct word here, the correct term is probably "change". Restricting Free Speech inhibits change, whether good or bad (it doesn't completely stop it either, obviously).
No, in the context of societal development, progress is usually just forwards.
There's always someone who preferred the good old days, positive is subjective, or at least, subject to certain criteria, and even then, it's often multiple generations that pass before we know one way or another.
There's always someone who preferred the good old days, positive is subjective, or at least, subject to certain criteria, and even then, it's often multiple generations that pass before we know one way or another.
I did not argue the subject matter, simply that progress is positive contrasted with the negative regress. Call it forwards and backwards if you like, same thing.
>Speech without a platform isn't speech at all
Then nothing's really changed. Before social media people would write letters to the editor or be interviewed on the radio or TV. Publication of said speech was always at the sole discretion of the platform holder.
Then nothing's really changed. Before social media people would write letters to the editor or be interviewed on the radio or TV. Publication of said speech was always at the sole discretion of the platform holder.
Martin Luther.
Editors have publisher responsibility and are thus liable for what is being published. Twitter, facebook are enjoying the protection from the state from being responsible for what individuals say. they cant have their cake and eat it. If they want to censor they should become a publisher, which we know they wont.
It is us, the end consumer, that has the cake and is eating it.
With TV and newsprint, we had no platform at all, unless the media company shared our views or deemed our speech newsworthy. Even for innocuous speech.
With Twitter and Facebook, almost all of us have a platform that reaches potentially millions of eyeballs. That didn't exist 20 years ago - back then, we'd have to self-publish newsletters, or literally speak from a soap box in the town square.
That said, it is a balancing act, and I'm not certain where that balance point is (and it possibly moves over time too). But, the posts that have been shared from Parler were possibly illegal - they were planning armed sedition at best and a coup at worst - both of which are very much illegal and prosecutable. It wasn't just unsavory speech - it was illegal speech, that Parler itself refused to moderate.
With TV and newsprint, we had no platform at all, unless the media company shared our views or deemed our speech newsworthy. Even for innocuous speech.
With Twitter and Facebook, almost all of us have a platform that reaches potentially millions of eyeballs. That didn't exist 20 years ago - back then, we'd have to self-publish newsletters, or literally speak from a soap box in the town square.
That said, it is a balancing act, and I'm not certain where that balance point is (and it possibly moves over time too). But, the posts that have been shared from Parler were possibly illegal - they were planning armed sedition at best and a coup at worst - both of which are very much illegal and prosecutable. It wasn't just unsavory speech - it was illegal speech, that Parler itself refused to moderate.
That's a case for the police then NOT Apple or Google.
Twitter still have plenty of calls to violence that are still up. As an example this one shared by tens of thousands of people.
https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330?s=2...
Right now you could as easily make an argument that the real danger to the democratic institutions are being lead by the big tech platforms. Either they become a publisher with responsibilities or they allow for this to happen.
Twitter still have plenty of calls to violence that are still up. As an example this one shared by tens of thousands of people.
https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330?s=2...
Right now you could as easily make an argument that the real danger to the democratic institutions are being lead by the big tech platforms. Either they become a publisher with responsibilities or they allow for this to happen.
> I have not yet concluded whether I believe in free speech without limits
Check out the Paradox of Tolerance, it’s very relevant to deciding on “free speech with / without limits”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Check out the Paradox of Tolerance, it’s very relevant to deciding on “free speech with / without limits”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Alright, tolerance without limits is off the table. That is the easy part done with.
What proactive tolerances are we working with? Because the standard on A-A-G seems to be "we're only going to tolerate things we mostly agree with" - which is a faux tolerance. If they can't tolerate the speech of a sitting president then we haven't really reached the point where the paradox of tolerance is at play. That is routine intolerance. To be tolerant there has to be an element of putting up with things they genuinely disagree with.
What proactive tolerances are we working with? Because the standard on A-A-G seems to be "we're only going to tolerate things we mostly agree with" - which is a faux tolerance. If they can't tolerate the speech of a sitting president then we haven't really reached the point where the paradox of tolerance is at play. That is routine intolerance. To be tolerant there has to be an element of putting up with things they genuinely disagree with.
Paradox of Tolerance is a hypocritical bullshit. If you are tolerant with exceptions, you are intolerant, period.
People who refer to it hypocritically pretend to have a higher moral ground than their opponents. In fact, they are more or less the same. Truly tolerant people should win the other side with their virtue, and yes, it insanely harder. But it's not hypocrisy.
People who refer to it hypocritically pretend to have a higher moral ground than their opponents. In fact, they are more or less the same. Truly tolerant people should win the other side with their virtue, and yes, it insanely harder. But it's not hypocrisy.
So would you agree with a statement that "we should just be tolerant of the KKK and win them to our side with virtue", then?
Note that this isn't hyperbole for rhetorical effect, that is literally the kind of intolerance that the paradox of tolerance is based on, and seems to be what you're advocating, by extension.
Note that this isn't hyperbole for rhetorical effect, that is literally the kind of intolerance that the paradox of tolerance is based on, and seems to be what you're advocating, by extension.
Yes, I fully agree with that statement. You can't just beat the racists from KKK into submission. You can only show them that their convictions are wrong.
that's incorrect. what seems to have been proven to work is trying to limit their ability to congregate, and to recruit.
It's a hollow victory if you'll become a fascist to fight fascists.
Just a nitpick, but fascism inherently has a component about a faux nostalgia for a vague better times, ultranationalism, and so on, and simply by suppressing speech one does not became a fastics, you probably mean totalitarian.
[deleted]
There's at least one person I've heard of of doing this type of interaction to change the minds of KKK members— Daryl Davis. He's certainly an uncommon example though. Most people who are in stark disagreement with another's views don't seek them out as potential friends.
“Ignorance breeds fear. We fear those things we don’t understand. If we don’t put a lid on that fear and keep that fear in check, that fear in turn will breed hatred because we hate those things that frighten us.
“If we don’t keep that hatred in check, that hatred in turn will breed destruction. We want to destroy those things that we hate. Why? Because they frighten us. But guess what? They may have been harmless and we were just ignorant.”
https://lanthorn.com/61539/news/news-daryl-davis-lecture-at-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/features/klan.ht...
“Ignorance breeds fear. We fear those things we don’t understand. If we don’t put a lid on that fear and keep that fear in check, that fear in turn will breed hatred because we hate those things that frighten us.
“If we don’t keep that hatred in check, that hatred in turn will breed destruction. We want to destroy those things that we hate. Why? Because they frighten us. But guess what? They may have been harmless and we were just ignorant.”
https://lanthorn.com/61539/news/news-daryl-davis-lecture-at-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/features/klan.ht...
Just wait until someone will come up with "Paradox of Human Rights" lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q (The Problem With Human Rights by Jonas Čeika aka. Cuck Philosophy)
Don't worry when they do, it will be used as a cheap thought killer meme all over HN, like the "Paradox of Tolerance" is being used now.
I don’t take tips about higher moral ground and virtue from anyone who thinks bullshit is a countable noun.
> Paradox of Tolerance is a hypocritical bullshit.
Quite frankly I’m finding it hard to respond.
> Truly tolerant people should win the other side with their virtue, and yes, it insanely harder.
Popper does a really good job explaining why this is not possible, and therefore tolerance without limit is not possible.
I’d prefer tolerance without limit to be the optimal strategy, but I do need some convincing that it’s possible.
Do you mind adding constructive criticism so we can work on a better mental model for tolerance and free speech?
Quite frankly I’m finding it hard to respond.
> Truly tolerant people should win the other side with their virtue, and yes, it insanely harder.
Popper does a really good job explaining why this is not possible, and therefore tolerance without limit is not possible.
I’d prefer tolerance without limit to be the optimal strategy, but I do need some convincing that it’s possible.
Do you mind adding constructive criticism so we can work on a better mental model for tolerance and free speech?
That's easy. Tolerance, is willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them [1]. People who carve themselves an exemption to not accept some behaviour or beliefs, are literally contradicting this definition. Yet, at the same time they pretend to be tolerant. There is a word for that in the English language: hypocrisy.
So, how do tolerant people fight the intolerant? Maybe, we have some similar precedents from the past. Turning the other cheek principle [2] and nonresistance movement [3] have worked out quite well for Gandhi. Educate, explain, suffer injustice, yet, stay true to your principles. That's the way to the better future for humanity.
(I'm not claiming to be a fully tolerant person myself. I'm just calling out hypocrites who pretend to be ones)
[1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/toleranc...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonresistance
So, how do tolerant people fight the intolerant? Maybe, we have some similar precedents from the past. Turning the other cheek principle [2] and nonresistance movement [3] have worked out quite well for Gandhi. Educate, explain, suffer injustice, yet, stay true to your principles. That's the way to the better future for humanity.
(I'm not claiming to be a fully tolerant person myself. I'm just calling out hypocrites who pretend to be ones)
[1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/toleranc...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonresistance
Gandhi himself says you can’t fast against a tyrant.
He also says that you can’t wake a person pretending to sleep.
I enjoy learning about the tactics used by non violent approaches - and it has shown a realistic and clever tactical approach to your political reality.
Gandhi’s approach was always about both - morals and practical tactics.
Take Mandela- he adapted Gandhi’s approach because he realized that the approach was contingent on his operating environment.
So acknowledging Gandhi means acknowledging Popper.
You can’t convince someone who is only deigning to speak to you, or worse - sees you as a chance to broadcast their poison while appearing legitimate.
Bad faith arguments are not solvable in the modern public squares.
He also says that you can’t wake a person pretending to sleep.
I enjoy learning about the tactics used by non violent approaches - and it has shown a realistic and clever tactical approach to your political reality.
Gandhi’s approach was always about both - morals and practical tactics.
Take Mandela- he adapted Gandhi’s approach because he realized that the approach was contingent on his operating environment.
So acknowledging Gandhi means acknowledging Popper.
You can’t convince someone who is only deigning to speak to you, or worse - sees you as a chance to broadcast their poison while appearing legitimate.
Bad faith arguments are not solvable in the modern public squares.
That's great it worked for Gandhi, but I'd argue the tolerant HAVE been doing that - stretching back to MLK's marches, and yet here we are (in the US) where a violent mob stormed the capitol.
Tolerating them may be better for humanity but it takes to long for those folks to disappear from the gene pool. And, they are armed due to the 2nd Amendment, which Gandhi didn't have to deal with. Sure, guns exist around the world but they are in massive abundance in the US.
Tolerating them may be better for humanity but it takes to long for those folks to disappear from the gene pool. And, they are armed due to the 2nd Amendment, which Gandhi didn't have to deal with. Sure, guns exist around the world but they are in massive abundance in the US.
Confronting a violent mob has nothing to do with tolerance. Those applying force can be stopped, with force. Suppressing their right to speak, to communicate, to bank, to work, is quite a different matter, more suitable to real fascists many are so scared about.
And I don't even want to touch the subject or very recent far more destructive mobs which not only were not silenced, but instead were celebrated and praised for their principled position
And I don't even want to touch the subject or very recent far more destructive mobs which not only were not silenced, but instead were celebrated and praised for their principled position
> And, they are armed due to the 2nd Amendment, which Gandhi didn't have to deal with.
I don't think you know who Gandhi was.
If you think that tolerance doesn't work then just don't call yourself tolerant, it's quite simple. Also your remarks about the gene pool might be interpreted as a call for genocide, so I'd be careful with that.
> There is a word for that in the English language: hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy, it's cognitive dissonance.
I don't think you know who Gandhi was.
If you think that tolerance doesn't work then just don't call yourself tolerant, it's quite simple. Also your remarks about the gene pool might be interpreted as a call for genocide, so I'd be careful with that.
> There is a word for that in the English language: hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy, it's cognitive dissonance.
> I don't think you know who Gandhi was
Half of this thread in a nutshell is loyalists who have a mediocre grasp on history.
Our government was established on founding principles that have been eroded and usurped beyond recognition. The loyalists cannot imagine that one day our elites in government - who care nothing about the people - will do something that even they think crosses a grotesque line. By that time, it will be too late. The power they've given the government in order to remove the bad orange man will not be given up without a fight.
Half of this thread in a nutshell is loyalists who have a mediocre grasp on history.
Our government was established on founding principles that have been eroded and usurped beyond recognition. The loyalists cannot imagine that one day our elites in government - who care nothing about the people - will do something that even they think crosses a grotesque line. By that time, it will be too late. The power they've given the government in order to remove the bad orange man will not be given up without a fight.
> Half of this thread in a nutshell is loyalists who have a mediocre grasp on history.
Yes, I particularly love when people are trying to appeal to history and justify hate speech laws and Antifa to say that without them, a second Hitler could raise to power. I consider myself to be lacking in education, but damn.
Yes, I particularly love when people are trying to appeal to history and justify hate speech laws and Antifa to say that without them, a second Hitler could raise to power. I consider myself to be lacking in education, but damn.
Not quite, it still works to an extent. In this case it's quite clear those utilising Parler are doing so to spread their intolerant message.
I'd say applying the Paradox of Tolerance is not hypocritical but more asymptotic, i.e. we will tend toward zero but never reach it.
Calm yourself as you use one of the most moderated platforms on the internet to spout off.
> - Private companies' interest should have little, if any, control over the ability of the public to speak
> - Speech without a platform isn't speech at all
These seem to me to be in conflict: if I don't have access to a particular platform (let's say, the New York Times), do I have access to freedom of speech?
> - Speech without a platform isn't speech at all
These seem to me to be in conflict: if I don't have access to a particular platform (let's say, the New York Times), do I have access to freedom of speech?
And there's a ton of hypothetical situations that show the contradiction of those two points.
First, if having a platform in a specific company's garden means speech and forcing someone to shout on a street corner to only a handful of people is silencing them, then how can they provide different size platforms to me versus anyone else? Is limiting my post to the millionth spot down the list any different then making me shout on a street corner to the same number of people? If they limit the view of my posts to just a handful of people rather than the front page, I"m being just as silenced as being forced to shout on a street corner. If they provide one person a spot on their front page and not me, am I being silenced? I demand my time on the front page or top search results. Are you going to regulate how companies are permitted to design their algorithm? Would you disallow algorithms that buried certain groups?
By designing the algorithms that put some people on the front page and not others, they already have made editorial decisions and are silencing people. So my question to any of the people who are against the companies not allowing some speech, why are you not against the algorithms that already silence people?
And second, if twitter can't deny users due to the type of speech, are christian forums forced to allow themselves to be overrun by 4chan type atheists or members of another religion?
These are a couple just off the top of my head, it's easy to come up with examples that show the original posters two points are in contradiction.
First, if having a platform in a specific company's garden means speech and forcing someone to shout on a street corner to only a handful of people is silencing them, then how can they provide different size platforms to me versus anyone else? Is limiting my post to the millionth spot down the list any different then making me shout on a street corner to the same number of people? If they limit the view of my posts to just a handful of people rather than the front page, I"m being just as silenced as being forced to shout on a street corner. If they provide one person a spot on their front page and not me, am I being silenced? I demand my time on the front page or top search results. Are you going to regulate how companies are permitted to design their algorithm? Would you disallow algorithms that buried certain groups?
By designing the algorithms that put some people on the front page and not others, they already have made editorial decisions and are silencing people. So my question to any of the people who are against the companies not allowing some speech, why are you not against the algorithms that already silence people?
And second, if twitter can't deny users due to the type of speech, are christian forums forced to allow themselves to be overrun by 4chan type atheists or members of another religion?
These are a couple just off the top of my head, it's easy to come up with examples that show the original posters two points are in contradiction.
Yeah for me it’s akin to being mad about being kicked out of my house if you spout off anti-Semitic things. It’s my house. My domain. My rules. You can go elsewhere and speak that garbage. Scale that idea up and you get where I’m coming down on all of this: Twitter, Facebook, AMazon, Apple etc are all for profit companies that can limit speech as they see fit and not be in violation of federal free speech guarantees.
Downvoters: care to say why?
Maybe because the lack of tolerance you're displaying is The Problem, and down voting is easier than dealing with it.
What if you're actually wrong and the other person is right? I'm sure it has happened before and will again.
How would you want to be treated if the roles were reversed?
Regardless; censoring, which is essentially what you're doing, can only push people further into their corners.
What if you're actually wrong and the other person is right? I'm sure it has happened before and will again.
How would you want to be treated if the roles were reversed?
Regardless; censoring, which is essentially what you're doing, can only push people further into their corners.
Tolerance of anti-semitism? How can that ever be right? I picked that specific hypothetical for a reason because I think the speech being “censored” here is inherently wrong, I.e it has no place in public discourse.
Tolerance of any opinion.
Much of what is now generally considered capital T true was once extremely controversial.
And censoring will always come back to chew your head off since you're hiding rather than solving the problem.
Much of what is now generally considered capital T true was once extremely controversial.
And censoring will always come back to chew your head off since you're hiding rather than solving the problem.
> Private companies' interest should have little, if any, control over the ability of the public to speak
This is the back door to authoritarianism. This basic premise would allow the government to reach in and force companies to associate against their will. This power will be abused.
> Speech without a platform isn't speech at all
This is utter nonsense. By this logic, speech without access to a bullhorn or an editorial board isn’t speech at all.
You have a right to speak without being prosecuted by the government. Pretending that you have a right to a Twitter account or an equivalent thereof is both silly, it’s incredibly entitled.
This is the back door to authoritarianism. This basic premise would allow the government to reach in and force companies to associate against their will. This power will be abused.
> Speech without a platform isn't speech at all
This is utter nonsense. By this logic, speech without access to a bullhorn or an editorial board isn’t speech at all.
You have a right to speak without being prosecuted by the government. Pretending that you have a right to a Twitter account or an equivalent thereof is both silly, it’s incredibly entitled.
> This is utter nonsense.
Nah, OP has a point - even if it's easy to misinterpret. Just as you mentioned government coercion about free association, speech means that "those people" are free to start their parallel society, their own journals, newspapers, forums and whatnot.
It means that speech as a right has to include the right for the capability of building, having, and operating a platform, not a right for a guaranteed audience.
Nah, OP has a point - even if it's easy to misinterpret. Just as you mentioned government coercion about free association, speech means that "those people" are free to start their parallel society, their own journals, newspapers, forums and whatnot.
It means that speech as a right has to include the right for the capability of building, having, and operating a platform, not a right for a guaranteed audience.
> Private companies' interest should have little, if any, control over the ability of the public to speak
This ignores that private companies are made up of people, and those people have opinions and moral compasses.
If some large number of your employees don't want to be working on a product that provides a platform for speech they believe is reprehensible, what do you do?
If you ignore them, some of them -- perhaps high value employees -- quit. Others, who maybe don't have great job mobility, stick around, but feel miserable, because their job makes them do unethical things. Not a great outcome.
Is free speech for all more important than refusing to sell to people you believe are doing something unethical with your product?
I honestly don't know the answer to that question. My gut reaction is to celebrate Parler effectively getting kicked off the internet, but I do worry that the long-term consequences of doing things like this will haunt us as a society.
This ignores that private companies are made up of people, and those people have opinions and moral compasses.
If some large number of your employees don't want to be working on a product that provides a platform for speech they believe is reprehensible, what do you do?
If you ignore them, some of them -- perhaps high value employees -- quit. Others, who maybe don't have great job mobility, stick around, but feel miserable, because their job makes them do unethical things. Not a great outcome.
Is free speech for all more important than refusing to sell to people you believe are doing something unethical with your product?
I honestly don't know the answer to that question. My gut reaction is to celebrate Parler effectively getting kicked off the internet, but I do worry that the long-term consequences of doing things like this will haunt us as a society.
The larger problem is that the office of president is out of check since 1945.
For the system to work, no one should believe this one position determines the course of the entire government, but since the 1980s you would be a fool not to.
Given the office of president is out of check and it gets to apply discretion to (in this example) how media companies will be treated both in actual law and whether cases are run, it is only a matter of time before a president builds his route to dictator. Members of whichever party puts him in will be happier for a decade at most, then it's soylent green for everyone.
For the system to work, no one should believe this one position determines the course of the entire government, but since the 1980s you would be a fool not to.
Given the office of president is out of check and it gets to apply discretion to (in this example) how media companies will be treated both in actual law and whether cases are run, it is only a matter of time before a president builds his route to dictator. Members of whichever party puts him in will be happier for a decade at most, then it's soylent green for everyone.
I believe the slowing down of a mob online by means of deplatforming them is a good strategy, and a feature of the system, assuming you're organizing yourself to adequately counter this mob when/if they attack again.
Sure, they feel persecuted for the deplatforming but that's not really reasonable - we know there's less reason in their community than there needs to be (well it's reasoning based on a funnel of lies they've been manipulated with over decades via Fox News, Republican party, etc), but it wasn't their toy to begin with - the other big kids/adults/tech companies were just happy to let them use them, so they don't have the right to having access to the toys that aren't theirs - and it's unhealthy to make them believe they do, which is essentially coddling for purpose of trying to stop them from crying or ending their temper tantrum - but then it prevents them from developing boundaries.
This is a complex situation, it will unfold how it does, I just hope current leadership is adequate and that forces that can be mobilized if necessary are adequately trained to try to reduce the loss of life if the uprising continues - or arguably terrorist acts - due to disbelieving that the election was fair, hypocritically it would be considered fair if their choice won.
Sure, they feel persecuted for the deplatforming but that's not really reasonable - we know there's less reason in their community than there needs to be (well it's reasoning based on a funnel of lies they've been manipulated with over decades via Fox News, Republican party, etc), but it wasn't their toy to begin with - the other big kids/adults/tech companies were just happy to let them use them, so they don't have the right to having access to the toys that aren't theirs - and it's unhealthy to make them believe they do, which is essentially coddling for purpose of trying to stop them from crying or ending their temper tantrum - but then it prevents them from developing boundaries.
This is a complex situation, it will unfold how it does, I just hope current leadership is adequate and that forces that can be mobilized if necessary are adequately trained to try to reduce the loss of life if the uprising continues - or arguably terrorist acts - due to disbelieving that the election was fair, hypocritically it would be considered fair if their choice won.
The fact that 4chan and Stormfront continue to exist is proof that no one's speech is being stifled. No one is entitled to these services. On top of this, this is also a business decision. Imagine the negative press that might come out if these platforms continue to host Parler. How many other customers might they lose as a result? Boycotts happen all the time, and why should any company stick their neck out for Parler? I guarantee no one at Apple, Google, or AWS made this decision because they felt it was "the moral thing to do."
Similarly, FOX News is under no obligation to broadcast "all opinions." There is no real distinction in this case.
Similarly, FOX News is under no obligation to broadcast "all opinions." There is no real distinction in this case.
> Speech without a platform isn't speech at all
One can always yell on the street corner, that's your (limited) platform.
One can always yell on the street corner, that's your (limited) platform.
Nowadays a "street corner" is you facebook page or your twitter.
If company grows so big that its use is so common - like a street corner - such platform should be available for all - and all should be accounted for their speech also. Platform is a platform, shouldn't policy people around - that is the job of ... police.
Do you wonder why now we have accounts blocked, but when there were people on the streets attacking policy I haven't heard of any account on facebook/twitter being blocked?
It is because platform wasn't free from politics like it should be, companies have preferences and they will block one political view and allow another - this should not be the case if the use of given platform is monopolistic (or duopolistic: twitter-facebook). If you grow you should give up some of your power, the question is at what scale it should happen.
If company grows so big that its use is so common - like a street corner - such platform should be available for all - and all should be accounted for their speech also. Platform is a platform, shouldn't policy people around - that is the job of ... police.
Do you wonder why now we have accounts blocked, but when there were people on the streets attacking policy I haven't heard of any account on facebook/twitter being blocked?
It is because platform wasn't free from politics like it should be, companies have preferences and they will block one political view and allow another - this should not be the case if the use of given platform is monopolistic (or duopolistic: twitter-facebook). If you grow you should give up some of your power, the question is at what scale it should happen.
Facebook and Twitter are commonly used, but they are not the street corner. These things didn't exist when the first amendment was written, but printing presses did. And they specifically did not write in a requirement that printers should print anything and everything. In fact, just 8 years after the first amendment was ratified they passed a federal law banning printing of "false, scandalous or malicious writing". And that was fine, because people could still yell on their street corner or write their own letters, which you will always have the right to do.
The explicit calls to specific acts of extreme violence against specific people would be chargeable as illegal incitement if shouted on a street corner.
Then you've essentially got duct* tape over your mouth while your opponents are handed free megaphones
(*duct/duck - delete as appropriate)
(*duct/duck - delete as appropriate)
We need to get out of the habit of calling these situations censorship and start calling then what they really are: in kind donations. Providing a communication platform for elected officials has a knowable monetary value. There are already campaign finance laws on the books for this situation.
Nobody has an obligation to facilitate your free speech.
I would disagree in the case of platforms which are monopolies. Or in this case let's call it a triopoly because they collaborate on things like this.
Same like how public utility companies cannot shut off your power or water because they don't like you.
Same like how public utility companies cannot shut off your power or water because they don't like you.
If anything, this is a classic example of "we're going to build our own platform, with blackjack hookers and insurrection", and seeing how far that gets you.
There's a line where continued operation becomes aiding and abetting, and it's also clear the content of that site represented a clear and present danger in the short term.
This isn't a theoretical discussion. This is a direct consequence of an attempted coup.
There's a line where continued operation becomes aiding and abetting, and it's also clear the content of that site represented a clear and present danger in the short term.
This isn't a theoretical discussion. This is a direct consequence of an attempted coup.
> If anything, this is a classic example of "we're going to build our own platform, with blackjack hookers and insurrection", and seeing how far that gets you.
You got it backwards. The Internet was build in such a way everyone could easily host their own platform. However due to companies like Amazon using questionable and monopolistic tactics the Internet is now build in such a way it's going to be very hard to go around these companies.
> This is a direct consequence of an attempted coup.
While a disgrace, riots and pillaging can hardly be called a coup. Read about the 2016 Turkish coup attempt to see what a real coup (attempt) looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... . Just like hard wind is not a hurricane, this wasn't a coup.
You got it backwards. The Internet was build in such a way everyone could easily host their own platform. However due to companies like Amazon using questionable and monopolistic tactics the Internet is now build in such a way it's going to be very hard to go around these companies.
> This is a direct consequence of an attempted coup.
While a disgrace, riots and pillaging can hardly be called a coup. Read about the 2016 Turkish coup attempt to see what a real coup (attempt) looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... . Just like hard wind is not a hurricane, this wasn't a coup.
Wait.
The President of the United States has spent the past several weeks trying to get anyone and everyone to: throw our legitimate votes, conjure new illegal votes, getting the Vice President to reject electors, getting the Senate to reject electors, sharing doctored videos, telling his supporters that they need to hold traitors accountable, telling his supporters to March in the capital and show strength.
Yeah, those rioters did not effect a coup, or even come close. But it is definitely true that someone is attempting a coup.
The President of the United States has spent the past several weeks trying to get anyone and everyone to: throw our legitimate votes, conjure new illegal votes, getting the Vice President to reject electors, getting the Senate to reject electors, sharing doctored videos, telling his supporters that they need to hold traitors accountable, telling his supporters to March in the capital and show strength.
Yeah, those rioters did not effect a coup, or even come close. But it is definitely true that someone is attempting a coup.
I think you didn't read the article mentioned by the poster above.
Basically to have a coup you need some kind of force and I don't mean thousands of guys with pitchforks I mean a large part of military with real soldiers that have experience and are trained to use guns.
Just because Trump is not capable of seeing that he lost doesn't mean he tried a coup, like the gp said, it is just a stronger wind, not a hurricane.
Just because Trump is not capable of seeing that he lost doesn't mean he tried a coup, like the gp said, it is just a stronger wind, not a hurricane.
You're describing a very specific form of coup, a military coup.
But they did have some kind of force. Enough to storm the capitol. With a noose, zip ties and cries to hang people in the line of succession.
While the President agitated them and then watched on monitors.
But they did have some kind of force. Enough to storm the capitol. With a noose, zip ties and cries to hang people in the line of succession.
While the President agitated them and then watched on monitors.
One police officer was murdered and congress had to stop their work. Why don't you tell us where the line should be drawn. If they had murdered 100 cops would that be enough? 5 senators? The vice president?
Even outlets like CNN are back-pedalling on calling this thing a coup: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/insurrection-coup-sedi... . Besides opinion pieces (which are clearly marked as such) and some quotes CNN doen't call it a coup (anymore).
> A "coup," shorthand for "coup d'état," is broadly characterized by Merriam-Webster as a "sudden decisive exercise of force in politics," but particularly the "violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group."
Civil unrest definitely does not qualify as "sudden decisive exercise of force". Now if Trump had declared a state of emergency because of the unrest and then use the emergency laws to arrest political opponents, now that would have been a coup.
> A "coup," shorthand for "coup d'état," is broadly characterized by Merriam-Webster as a "sudden decisive exercise of force in politics," but particularly the "violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group."
Civil unrest definitely does not qualify as "sudden decisive exercise of force". Now if Trump had declared a state of emergency because of the unrest and then use the emergency laws to arrest political opponents, now that would have been a coup.
What do you call it when a bunch of idiots get brainwashed by Trump and social media echo chambers into believing the election was stolen even though republican officials and courts have clearly show there is not enough evidence to overturn a single state include Georgia that only had a 11k vote difference and those people commit murder and obstruct government work?
So somewhere between a military coup and a bloodless coup [1] is what’s being attempted by the current President.
I think we can all agree that if Trump succeeded, a large number of people would call it a coup and they would be right.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution#
I think we can all agree that if Trump succeeded, a large number of people would call it a coup and they would be right.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution#
There are many bloodless coups that are also military coups [1], the possibility of using a force has almost the same power as using a force.
Revelotion != coup.
Coups is done by a small but capable force, they would need to take both Capitol and Pentagon at least (and I mean not just shoot everyone there, but persuade those in control to give it up or turn them).
How do you envision those that raided capitol could take power of US? All they could do is just sit there and wait for special forces shoot them one by one.
Coup wasn't even considered, most probably what they did is plant malicious software on laptops/servers there and I think the real threat will be seen only few months later.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempt...
Revelotion != coup.
Coups is done by a small but capable force, they would need to take both Capitol and Pentagon at least (and I mean not just shoot everyone there, but persuade those in control to give it up or turn them).
How do you envision those that raided capitol could take power of US? All they could do is just sit there and wait for special forces shoot them one by one.
Coup wasn't even considered, most probably what they did is plant malicious software on laptops/servers there and I think the real threat will be seen only few months later.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempt...
They built a noose, went in with zipties and were chanting "hang pence". That it was botched doesn't make it any less of a coup. And there was a clear and present threat from the services that have been closed down.
But sure, ignore all the stuff that contradicts your argument to minimise the impact of an assault on democratic institutions.
But sure, ignore all the stuff that contradicts your argument to minimise the impact of an assault on democratic institutions.
Why would you bring zip ties to pillaging? Were they prepared to fix the lectern in case it slips from their hands? Or more likely they were prepared to take hostages? The crowd was chanting their wish to hang the vice president.
You are right. It was a disgrace and a very unserious attempt, but the aim was clearly a coup.
Winds don’t have aims and goals. That crowd went there to stop the process of congress affirming President-elect Joe Biden’s victory. That’s what makes it a coup attempt. If only successfull and well organized coups would count what would be the meaning of the term “coup attempt”?
You are right. It was a disgrace and a very unserious attempt, but the aim was clearly a coup.
Winds don’t have aims and goals. That crowd went there to stop the process of congress affirming President-elect Joe Biden’s victory. That’s what makes it a coup attempt. If only successfull and well organized coups would count what would be the meaning of the term “coup attempt”?
There's room for some nuance here. A bunch of fairly confused people with fairly confused goals, and no clear plan to achieve them, wouldn't normally count as a coup. There may have been actors who had more of a plan. It's not a 0-1 binary thing.
They were quite literally seconds away from something incredibly more serious happening.
Just because they botched the implementation doesn't lessen the intent.
Just because they botched the implementation doesn't lessen the intent.
> what a real coup (attempt) looks like
While I agree the physical attempt was weak. Parler was literally hyping up about killing multiple politicians ( eg. Planting the head of the VP on a tree).
Additionally, they got really far, up to the chamber where they hid. If they would have breached that chamber, the coup could have succeeded ( eg. No Pelosi/Pence/Biden/..)
I severely underestimated the talks on Parler until I saw the evidence and Amazon banned them.
As a reference, the coup on 06/01 is very similar to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch
Also, the 50 lawsuits without any sufficient evidence to throw out legitimate votes and trying to win by in person peer pressure doesn't belong in any western democracy.
This was a coup. A failed coup is still a coup.
( Belgian )
While I agree the physical attempt was weak. Parler was literally hyping up about killing multiple politicians ( eg. Planting the head of the VP on a tree).
Additionally, they got really far, up to the chamber where they hid. If they would have breached that chamber, the coup could have succeeded ( eg. No Pelosi/Pence/Biden/..)
I severely underestimated the talks on Parler until I saw the evidence and Amazon banned them.
As a reference, the coup on 06/01 is very similar to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch
Also, the 50 lawsuits without any sufficient evidence to throw out legitimate votes and trying to win by in person peer pressure doesn't belong in any western democracy.
This was a coup. A failed coup is still a coup.
( Belgian )
And I disagree, platforms are not monopolies. Your public utility is a different category because they are PHYSICAL infrastructure - you can't easily compete among providers for service due to real world physical limits.
But you can make your own software stack, from the ground up if needed.
I mean this is HN, where people think dropbox is easily cloned over a weekend (it's just rsync and tftp), twitter employs 10 times as many people as needed since it really only take a few dozen, etc. And, the free market plus private corporations are part of the natural order of the world, why weren't they the 11th commandment God etched on the tablets given to Abraham?
Quit moaning on a web forum about how a non-government entity must accommodate your chat needs, and actually make your own. Or go old school and print all the crap you want to distribute. Last I checked the Constitution didn't guarantee your access to social media. Can't really say the Founding Fathers original intent was that you can hit the like button on some post hosted by a private corporation, no matter what.
But you can make your own software stack, from the ground up if needed.
I mean this is HN, where people think dropbox is easily cloned over a weekend (it's just rsync and tftp), twitter employs 10 times as many people as needed since it really only take a few dozen, etc. And, the free market plus private corporations are part of the natural order of the world, why weren't they the 11th commandment God etched on the tablets given to Abraham?
Quit moaning on a web forum about how a non-government entity must accommodate your chat needs, and actually make your own. Or go old school and print all the crap you want to distribute. Last I checked the Constitution didn't guarantee your access to social media. Can't really say the Founding Fathers original intent was that you can hit the like button on some post hosted by a private corporation, no matter what.
Without water you die. You will be totally fine even if you no longer can post insane conspiracy theories about microchipped pedophiles who want to eat your brains on Twitter. Because you can still make a sign and stand outside city hall to protest it.
Just like you need water, you need to participate in society. For instance you need to know that there's a virus out there that experts think is quite serious, and you need to know what everyone else thinks the right response is.
You're not answering to his point, though. Anyone can know all this without posting "...insane conspiracy theories about microchipped pedophiles who want to eat your brains."
No, you can't. Someone's gotta make all that news for you to read, and they have to be able to disseminate it in a way that makes it louder than all the conspiracies, or else you will also not know the truth from the lies.
Without water you'll die. Without the facts that lady got herself killed the other day.
Without water you'll die. Without the facts that lady got herself killed the other day.
Your answer does not address what I wrote or OP's point.
You can watch the news and read a newspaper. You don’t need Twitter to tell you there’s a virus out there.
The first COVID news spread over wechat, while the chinese government was still claiming that there was nothing to worry about. So yes we needed twitter and its alternatives to know about it.
The news told these people they need to go fight in the middle east and ‘Defend Freedom’ because Saddam has nukes. That ship has unfortunately sailed.
That's actually not true: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center...
“the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.”
“the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.”
The thing is, this doesn't actually matter. This service wasn't being used to "freely assemble" (as outlined in your source), it was being used as a tool to facilitate insurrection.
This clear and present danger was obvious, and places the imperative on supporting services to question whether they want to aid and abet sedition.
This clear and present danger was obvious, and places the imperative on supporting services to question whether they want to aid and abet sedition.
The insurrection happened at the capitol building, not on Parler.
This isn't just about Parler specifically. The point is that with any of these deplatformings, it is manifestly untrue that the platforms can do whatever they want.
But do we have a responsibility to not hinder someone else's free speech? Not with regards to the current post but just thinking in lines with what you said.
Yes we do, but we do not have an obligation to facilitate it. Private forums have no obligation to publish or distribute anything they don’t want to. Their owners and operators have rights too. Free speech simply doesn’t apply. Just go and communicate somewhere else, or build your own chat service, or publish a leaflet or book, or whatever. But I have no obligation to allow you to come into my house or business and say these things.
Not quite, if you have a mono/duo/tri-poly you give up certain rights, this is how democracy works, unless you want to end up in corpo-cracy.
I don’t think it’s possible to mandatorily restrict editorialising without killing platforms. Any such restrictions would be a spammers, griefers and pornographers manifesto. Restricting editorial rights is a horrible can or worms to open.
But anyway, there are no social media monopolies. We have Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, WhatsApp, iMessage, Discord, Signal, etc, etc, and it goes on and on. They’re also very segmented, Facebook is huge but it’s almost irrelevant to kids and young adults. New services pop up regularly because barriers to entry are incredibly low and segmentation is so high.
But anyway, there are no social media monopolies. We have Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, WhatsApp, iMessage, Discord, Signal, etc, etc, and it goes on and on. They’re also very segmented, Facebook is huge but it’s almost irrelevant to kids and young adults. New services pop up regularly because barriers to entry are incredibly low and segmentation is so high.
I have no obligation to listen to what you say, nor do I have an obligation to build you a platform to spread it.
More precisely facilitate hate speech.
For some reason the fact that Parker is a cesspit doesn’t get mentioned. Perhaps because people here rightly haven’t been to it and are being intellectually honest and not decrying something without evidence.
For some reason the fact that Parker is a cesspit doesn’t get mentioned. Perhaps because people here rightly haven’t been to it and are being intellectually honest and not decrying something without evidence.
What do you mean by "without limits"?
Twitter and Facebook have recently gone to court because of their blatant censorship, editing, and banning or speakers for having differing opinions. They are no longer a distributed publishing houses free. They are now editors and are to be held accountable for their actions and the actions of others on their sites.
I believe that if we add one limit to the liberty of speech and we'll have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
Twitter and Facebook have recently gone to court because of their blatant censorship, editing, and banning or speakers for having differing opinions. They are no longer a distributed publishing houses free. They are now editors and are to be held accountable for their actions and the actions of others on their sites.
I believe that if we add one limit to the liberty of speech and we'll have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
In your opinion how should Twitter handle neonazis and fascists? How should US society handle white supremacists?
Let the people decide whether they want to support the message. If we do a good job raising our youth then they will shun hate speech and no one will join those groups. If a few powerful people can decide to hide those groups in the shadows then we won't recognize them when they emerge...which is inevitable as no society will ever be 100% free of hate.
I'm not entirely sure where neonazis come into play here on the topic of human liberties like freedom of speech. Fascists on the other hand... that's the topic isn't it? By applying an amendment to freedom of speech to prevent or force any speech is authoritarian by definition.
Just so we're clear fascism definition "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe."
I'd prefer to speak solely on the point of human liberties. And just so we're clear, you can see the differences of civil rights and human liberties which are naturally inherent to all people. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_liberties "Congress shall make no law" - This is the first Amendment of your Liberties, and regardless of the reasoning, changing them will only trade 1 evil for a worse one.
The way it is now is that all may do as they wish... with lawful consequences unless protected by the your rights and liberties. To be clear what I mean is that if you cause damages and there are victims of the "crime" then you should be held accountable. The problem we are facing today is that so many people have those their integrity as to make some people regret having rights and liberties. But it's a slippery slope, imagine on the far side of the extreme where the fed comes to your home in the middle of the night with guns and cameras in tote and force you to say something against your will. That is inherently against your liberty (freedom of speech), would you give this up because someone else said something you don't like?
In my opinion all media should be completely and totally decentralized... a bit like bitcoin. What this means is that no one should be able to control media... not even the federal institutions (especially not them). Fascists and neonazis... well they can all be ousted on decentralized networks for all I care. Every news/media/message should be accountable, but should not be controlled. If someone claims or says something that causes damages it should be accounted for, but there should be no control over it from any outside force.
In China every website, every video, every message has what can be referred to as an OID, in software these can be used as public universal identifiers and can be traced back to a source. The problem with China is that their fascist federal institution will reward and pay people to report and take down any media they don't like. That's fascism. That's the exact opposite of what America should be by our constitutional rights and our inherent liberties. However! Their tracking system is astounding and could help the people take lawful retribution on any damages caused by some created content.
Just so we're clear fascism definition "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe."
I'd prefer to speak solely on the point of human liberties. And just so we're clear, you can see the differences of civil rights and human liberties which are naturally inherent to all people. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_liberties "Congress shall make no law" - This is the first Amendment of your Liberties, and regardless of the reasoning, changing them will only trade 1 evil for a worse one.
The way it is now is that all may do as they wish... with lawful consequences unless protected by the your rights and liberties. To be clear what I mean is that if you cause damages and there are victims of the "crime" then you should be held accountable. The problem we are facing today is that so many people have those their integrity as to make some people regret having rights and liberties. But it's a slippery slope, imagine on the far side of the extreme where the fed comes to your home in the middle of the night with guns and cameras in tote and force you to say something against your will. That is inherently against your liberty (freedom of speech), would you give this up because someone else said something you don't like?
In my opinion all media should be completely and totally decentralized... a bit like bitcoin. What this means is that no one should be able to control media... not even the federal institutions (especially not them). Fascists and neonazis... well they can all be ousted on decentralized networks for all I care. Every news/media/message should be accountable, but should not be controlled. If someone claims or says something that causes damages it should be accounted for, but there should be no control over it from any outside force.
In China every website, every video, every message has what can be referred to as an OID, in software these can be used as public universal identifiers and can be traced back to a source. The problem with China is that their fascist federal institution will reward and pay people to report and take down any media they don't like. That's fascism. That's the exact opposite of what America should be by our constitutional rights and our inherent liberties. However! Their tracking system is astounding and could help the people take lawful retribution on any damages caused by some created content.
I simply said neonazis because - I'm assuming - we both agree that we don't want their numbers to grow, don't want our society to conform to their racism, etc.
And since I read a lot of HN comments about how free speech needs limits to "handle nazis", and since you said no, I became interested in what's your opinion on this problem. Thanks for the fast and detailed reply!
> [definition of fascism]
Yeah, that works. Usually I just say it's a method of obtaining and maintaining power through populist ultranationalism, palingenetic rhetoric with a certain aesthetics, etc.
> To be clear what I mean is that if you cause damages and there are victims of the "crime" then you should be held accountable.
Do I correctly assume that this is very similar to the libertarian idea of using/extending tort law for as many things a possible?
> slippery slope
Um, just a nitpick, but a slippery slope argument is usually a fallacy.
So, what I'm trying to say is that we already have limits on it. And while I think continuously extending those limits - just as Hitchens's fire fire fire speech from 2006 argues [0] - is a noble goal, but also as other comments said it's Twitter's or Jack Dorsey's freedom to not be a mouthpiece of someone. Which is interestingly the same thing as your example. Just instead of the feds trying to force you to say something it's Trump trying to force/coerce/pressure Twitter to host him. (Which is basically the "free association" part of liberties.)
> [decentralized accountable media]
I wholeheartedly agree. I'm still bitter about how instead of evolving RSS, PubSubHubBub, PingBack and stuff to something more, we just got Facebook, Twitter, WordPress and Blog Fucking Spot.
Yet it's hard to deny how powerful network effects are. This sort of means every niche will have its own "natural monopoly". (For example despite all its money Google was not able to seriously contest FB, nor WhatsApp. And FB was only able to contain it and Instagram by buying them.)
Aaaand, while I very much like Signal, it's yet another centralized thing.
... and yes, I know it's hard to make a decentralized platform. Federation is hard, spam, sybil attacks, reputation accounting. Though maybe with Bitcoin Lightning (or similar) someone could put together the right microeconomics (incentives for cooperation).
[0] I like his argument about how the freedom of speech is also about having the freedom to hear other's speech. Hear criticism about oneself, and so on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU
And since I read a lot of HN comments about how free speech needs limits to "handle nazis", and since you said no, I became interested in what's your opinion on this problem. Thanks for the fast and detailed reply!
> [definition of fascism]
Yeah, that works. Usually I just say it's a method of obtaining and maintaining power through populist ultranationalism, palingenetic rhetoric with a certain aesthetics, etc.
> To be clear what I mean is that if you cause damages and there are victims of the "crime" then you should be held accountable.
Do I correctly assume that this is very similar to the libertarian idea of using/extending tort law for as many things a possible?
> slippery slope
Um, just a nitpick, but a slippery slope argument is usually a fallacy.
So, what I'm trying to say is that we already have limits on it. And while I think continuously extending those limits - just as Hitchens's fire fire fire speech from 2006 argues [0] - is a noble goal, but also as other comments said it's Twitter's or Jack Dorsey's freedom to not be a mouthpiece of someone. Which is interestingly the same thing as your example. Just instead of the feds trying to force you to say something it's Trump trying to force/coerce/pressure Twitter to host him. (Which is basically the "free association" part of liberties.)
> [decentralized accountable media]
I wholeheartedly agree. I'm still bitter about how instead of evolving RSS, PubSubHubBub, PingBack and stuff to something more, we just got Facebook, Twitter, WordPress and Blog Fucking Spot.
Yet it's hard to deny how powerful network effects are. This sort of means every niche will have its own "natural monopoly". (For example despite all its money Google was not able to seriously contest FB, nor WhatsApp. And FB was only able to contain it and Instagram by buying them.)
Aaaand, while I very much like Signal, it's yet another centralized thing.
... and yes, I know it's hard to make a decentralized platform. Federation is hard, spam, sybil attacks, reputation accounting. Though maybe with Bitcoin Lightning (or similar) someone could put together the right microeconomics (incentives for cooperation).
[0] I like his argument about how the freedom of speech is also about having the freedom to hear other's speech. Hear criticism about oneself, and so on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU
> but also as other comments said it's Twitter's or Jack Dorsey's freedom to not be a mouthpiece of someone. Which is interestingly the same thing as your example. Just instead of the feds trying to force you to say something it's Trump trying to force/coerce/pressure Twitter to host him. (Which is basically the "free association" part of liberties.)
Twitter is a publicly traded company. Its owned by the public so Jack Dorsey can't claim it as his own platform. The second he sought the benefits of public funding, it became the publics platform- democrat or republican should have equal right to it. But he's welcome to tweet his opinion if he wants to.
Twitter is a publicly traded company. Its owned by the public so Jack Dorsey can't claim it as his own platform. The second he sought the benefits of public funding, it became the publics platform- democrat or republican should have equal right to it. But he's welcome to tweet his opinion if he wants to.
He's still the CEO, so he represents the company, he has the responsibility and capacity for deciding who to do business with (who to serve as a customer/user, who to allow to "enter/visit their venue").
> - Speech without a platform isn't speech at all
Free speech is the freedom to say what you like without punishment. It doesn't mean that everyone has a natural birthright to an audience, or to free, global distribution of their speech.
Free speech is the freedom to say what you like without punishment. It doesn't mean that everyone has a natural birthright to an audience, or to free, global distribution of their speech.
It's really just up to the government to nationalize the internet and popular News organizations, and provide proper equal access to all as protected by the constitution.
Nationalization is the answer you're looking for
Nationalization is the answer you're looking for
> Just because a private company is legally allowed to do something, doesn't mean they should
You don't expect coal companies to suspend operations because of pollution and climate change. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "should" here. Care to clarify?
You don't expect coal companies to suspend operations because of pollution and climate change. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "should" here. Care to clarify?
The word OP should have used it "ought" (instead of should) as in normative ethics.
It's good that the laws/government does not coerce/force companies to do business with everyone under the sun, but it doesn't mean it would be good if they (or if society) started to exercise this right all the time, because it can be very much abused, for example if some company is extremely xenophobic/racist, then in that case it's not good that that company is excluding a bunch of people. Also, if corporations drop everybody just because it's inconvenient/unprofitable, it can easily lead to abuse of market position.
It's good that the laws/government does not coerce/force companies to do business with everyone under the sun, but it doesn't mean it would be good if they (or if society) started to exercise this right all the time, because it can be very much abused, for example if some company is extremely xenophobic/racist, then in that case it's not good that that company is excluding a bunch of people. Also, if corporations drop everybody just because it's inconvenient/unprofitable, it can easily lead to abuse of market position.
I think banning things temporarily to finish Biden take presidency seems OK to me. But banning permanently means we are failing with arguments to win over people.
Opposing violence permanently seems OK to me, but then a law should be made for it and not left for individual company.
Usually it is recommended that for complex and emotional content email/text communication is not good. It should be done in person. In social media complex/emotional things are being discussed in text form which causes more rift. So we need better tools video/animation/pictures to discuss things that are being discussed in social media. These better tools should be easy to use for common person to use and communicate.
It will be also good to have a tool, which for any argument gives all the assumption being made. Such a tool can also help in communicating better.
In short we need better communication tools and better laws. (minor edit and added last sentence)
Usually it is recommended that for complex and emotional content email/text communication is not good. It should be done in person. In social media complex/emotional things are being discussed in text form which causes more rift. So we need better tools video/animation/pictures to discuss things that are being discussed in social media. These better tools should be easy to use for common person to use and communicate.
It will be also good to have a tool, which for any argument gives all the assumption being made. Such a tool can also help in communicating better.
In short we need better communication tools and better laws. (minor edit and added last sentence)
> - Removing it in any capacity should be done with extreme care and free of any bias one way or another, with a lot of thought put into any future consequences
I agree with basically your whole post, but I think it should be emphasized that extreme care has been taken. Things have escalated to the point that Trump supporters violently attacked the legislative branch in order to subvert our political process. There isn’t much worse than that. Parler is being actively used as part of a system to plan, coordinate, and build support for more attacks (e.g. posts referring to journalists as soft targets).
I agree with basically your whole post, but I think it should be emphasized that extreme care has been taken. Things have escalated to the point that Trump supporters violently attacked the legislative branch in order to subvert our political process. There isn’t much worse than that. Parler is being actively used as part of a system to plan, coordinate, and build support for more attacks (e.g. posts referring to journalists as soft targets).
Free speech without limits. Free speech enforced to any platform. In my opinion can be called as dictature of free speech.
> My line for free speech seems to lie in speech that incites violence
It sounds very easy when you speak in the abstract.
I could tell you a dozen examples where you can argue for both sides, and what your conclusion will be will depend on what the media says and whether or not you like the person they "persecute" and vilify.
AOC said "Are you all ready to make a ruckus? Are you all ready to fight for our rights?". "Oh no, those are fighting words, they incite violence". Would you like ban her from all platforms?
What happens to people without a party? A recent trend on the progressive left was the #ForceTheVote to ask the AOC, squad and the progressive wing of the party to withhold their vote for Nancy Pelosi's speakership in exchange for a vote on M4All (the thing they've run on, "but now is not the time"). Should they all be banned because they want to "force" the vote?
"Hold your representatives feet to the fire"? Do I want to literally do that and burn them alive? Or I want to keep them accountable?
"Heads on pikes"? Do I want to behead them, or I want them to lose their position and I want them to get fired?
What if I get frustrated at a party, and I say "the gloves are off" and decide to run against them? "Oh no, he said 'gloves are off', he wants to be beat up the congressman/congresswoman. Silence him!". What if I say, "I'm going to destroy them". Obviously, I was speaking in the political sense, but if enough people on cable say the opposite, you'll never believe me.
The point is that there are usually hundreds of ways to frame something. If you didn't hear the context, and you only see the 5 seconds soundbite, you'll believe it's justified. You also won't look into it, because "why would you protect an aggressor? the clip was clear, he/she threatened people with violence".
FYI: I brought examples from the left so that people understand that almost every person who has given an energetic speech can be framed as "violent" and in the future can be shut down (if the power dynamics change). I used American examples, as the two-party system is simpler as a multiparty system and most people are familiar with the things that happen in the US. The same would be true in other countries, though.
It sounds very easy when you speak in the abstract.
I could tell you a dozen examples where you can argue for both sides, and what your conclusion will be will depend on what the media says and whether or not you like the person they "persecute" and vilify.
AOC said "Are you all ready to make a ruckus? Are you all ready to fight for our rights?". "Oh no, those are fighting words, they incite violence". Would you like ban her from all platforms?
What happens to people without a party? A recent trend on the progressive left was the #ForceTheVote to ask the AOC, squad and the progressive wing of the party to withhold their vote for Nancy Pelosi's speakership in exchange for a vote on M4All (the thing they've run on, "but now is not the time"). Should they all be banned because they want to "force" the vote?
"Hold your representatives feet to the fire"? Do I want to literally do that and burn them alive? Or I want to keep them accountable?
"Heads on pikes"? Do I want to behead them, or I want them to lose their position and I want them to get fired?
What if I get frustrated at a party, and I say "the gloves are off" and decide to run against them? "Oh no, he said 'gloves are off', he wants to be beat up the congressman/congresswoman. Silence him!". What if I say, "I'm going to destroy them". Obviously, I was speaking in the political sense, but if enough people on cable say the opposite, you'll never believe me.
The point is that there are usually hundreds of ways to frame something. If you didn't hear the context, and you only see the 5 seconds soundbite, you'll believe it's justified. You also won't look into it, because "why would you protect an aggressor? the clip was clear, he/she threatened people with violence".
FYI: I brought examples from the left so that people understand that almost every person who has given an energetic speech can be framed as "violent" and in the future can be shut down (if the power dynamics change). I used American examples, as the two-party system is simpler as a multiparty system and most people are familiar with the things that happen in the US. The same would be true in other countries, though.
The fiery calls to "fight" are not the problem. It is the "this election was stolen from us", rigged election, etc. without any evidence. And what's more, saying those things after courts have shut them down and rejected them.
If you make such grave accusations without proof, you are guilty of inciting what results.
If you see smoke and yell fire in a crowded room and people are trampled trying to get out, fine.
If you yell fire in a crowded room with no evidence, and people get trampled, you are culpable. Even if you said "remain calm and peaceful" after you yelled fire.
If you make such grave accusations without proof, you are guilty of inciting what results.
If you see smoke and yell fire in a crowded room and people are trampled trying to get out, fine.
If you yell fire in a crowded room with no evidence, and people get trampled, you are culpable. Even if you said "remain calm and peaceful" after you yelled fire.
But that's exactly what happens, for example, in Russia or Belarus. The opposition claims the election was rigged, the court dismisses these claims, and the government uses the law against inciting violence to silence and or jail the opposition. And it is nearly impossible to prove that the elections in the whole were rigged - in the best case they have a proof on a number of episodes that total in, let's say, 100k of votes, but that still doesn't prove the overall result is falsified.
Right, but in russian elections you can look for indicators of election fraud and find them by the dozen, and in the US you cannot. In russia, all of the party's officials are complicit stooges going along with the narrative that threy totally won by 92%, where as im the US even the VP is acknowledging his loss.
There are no markers or evidence of any kind. Nobody can even come up with plausible stories nevermind facts.
So should we really be making the comparison to two of the most obviously corrupt states on earth? Does that help the conversation or just muddy the waters?
There are no markers or evidence of any kind. Nobody can even come up with plausible stories nevermind facts.
So should we really be making the comparison to two of the most obviously corrupt states on earth? Does that help the conversation or just muddy the waters?
The waters are already muddy. Remember that we are discussing this in the context of censoring speech, "are there plausible stories" can't be the deciding factor in that.
Right, but what I'm saying is that the grey areas in life can be resolved through examination of indicators, and "is there a plausible story" is one of them. It's stronger in some scenarios than others. For example, it's pretty much the only indicator you need to dismiss more outragerous claims like flat-earthers.
The simple question of "what would be the point" is enough to dismiss nearly all of that spectrum of conspiracy theory - wherein no reason that makes a modicum of sense can be given. "Hur dur, because control the populous" or something is generally the best that can be mustered, and asking how or why leads only to more dead ends.
Likewise, trying to come up with a story about why both his own party and the opposing party and a large number of his own base and the entirety of the opposition's base will lead to no plausible story.
The simple question of "what would be the point" is enough to dismiss nearly all of that spectrum of conspiracy theory - wherein no reason that makes a modicum of sense can be given. "Hur dur, because control the populous" or something is generally the best that can be mustered, and asking how or why leads only to more dead ends.
Likewise, trying to come up with a story about why both his own party and the opposing party and a large number of his own base and the entirety of the opposition's base will lead to no plausible story.
I think using Russia or Belarus as examples is completely incorrect. And all this questioning has only solidified how secure elections in the US are.
Take GA for example. A large percentage of the election officials are Trump supporters. I don't know about post coup attempt, but leading up they said they would still vote for Trump again even after he started putting them in danger with his fraud nonsense.
Finally, if someone wants to 'rig' an election, the path is not directly through changing votes, it's through social engineering. That's what the Russia investigation was about in 2016, and what Trump attempted here through all the lies both leading up to and post election.
Take GA for example. A large percentage of the election officials are Trump supporters. I don't know about post coup attempt, but leading up they said they would still vote for Trump again even after he started putting them in danger with his fraud nonsense.
Finally, if someone wants to 'rig' an election, the path is not directly through changing votes, it's through social engineering. That's what the Russia investigation was about in 2016, and what Trump attempted here through all the lies both leading up to and post election.
Uh, the Russia investigation had credible evidence and resulted in multiple arrests and convictions. It turned up multiple cases of collusion with russian operatives. They did not, however find enough evidence that there was an overall conspiracy to collude or that Trump had any clue what was going on in the larger scope.
I think you're replying to what you assumed matwood was going to say about the Russia investigation, rather than what matwood actually said.
> Russia investigation had credible evidence and resulted in multiple arrests and convictions
The comment I responded to mentioned elections in Russia, unrelated to Russian election interference in 2016.
The comment I responded to mentioned elections in Russia, unrelated to Russian election interference in 2016.
And ... who knows, maybe Putin really won maybe not. After all he systematically crushes any real opposition.
The problem in Russia, the problem in all of these questions is the huge imbalance of power. Russia an Belarus is an autocracy. (Yes, it's again context, but using the word context is uselessly too broad, doesn't have explanatory power.)
So Trump claims they are persecuted, we can look at the balance of power. Oh, he's the sitting president. Well, then it's very-very-very unlikely that he's silenced, and it's more likely that he's trying to overextend his power, and he's simply facing pushback from various other social/democratic/other institutions.
When Twitter banned the SciHub account because it broke their Counterfeit policy people noted that in this case it was likely Twitter using its power too much to please Elsevier/India.
The problem in Russia, the problem in all of these questions is the huge imbalance of power. Russia an Belarus is an autocracy. (Yes, it's again context, but using the word context is uselessly too broad, doesn't have explanatory power.)
So Trump claims they are persecuted, we can look at the balance of power. Oh, he's the sitting president. Well, then it's very-very-very unlikely that he's silenced, and it's more likely that he's trying to overextend his power, and he's simply facing pushback from various other social/democratic/other institutions.
When Twitter banned the SciHub account because it broke their Counterfeit policy people noted that in this case it was likely Twitter using its power too much to please Elsevier/India.
I was able to sympathise with BLM protesters because of the incidents of the past and also comparing police presence in capitol during the priest of BLM and MAGA goons.
In case of MAGA goons, despites courts, a lot of which were conservative judges, and the republicans themselves not finding any evidence of election fraud which would change the result of election, they continue to try to overturn the result with force. They are acting in bad faith. The fact that more than 70 million people support this is the chilling part.
There are people that gather every year to celebrate aliens. If a fight breaks out at a ufo fair and people get hurt do we arrest everyone that said they saw a ufo? Do we take away their platform? Who decides where to draw the line?
A few of those arguments don't require evidence, since they were matters of law vs. matters of fact.
One of the arguments made was that laws passed by legislatures weren't followed, for example the deadline for mail-in ballots in PA, which was extended until 5 P.M on November 5 even though the law on the books is explicit that ballots postmarked after election day were invalid. The fact that a court upheld the view in contradiction with fairly plain language of the law caused some controversy.
The above doesn't mean "The election was stolen". It doesn't mean it would have turned out differently. But I think there is some room for debate. Even though Trump is aggrandizing the issue politicians do that all the time and aren't de-platformed for it.
One of the arguments made was that laws passed by legislatures weren't followed, for example the deadline for mail-in ballots in PA, which was extended until 5 P.M on November 5 even though the law on the books is explicit that ballots postmarked after election day were invalid. The fact that a court upheld the view in contradiction with fairly plain language of the law caused some controversy.
The above doesn't mean "The election was stolen". It doesn't mean it would have turned out differently. But I think there is some room for debate. Even though Trump is aggrandizing the issue politicians do that all the time and aren't de-platformed for it.
The deadline for mail-in ballots was not based on delivery time, it was based on postmark time.
So there is absolutely nothing wrong with a ballot arriving after 5PM November 5th, so long as it was postmarked before the cutoff.
So the laws were followed, no contradiction, just a selective lack of understanding by a group of bad actors.
So there is absolutely nothing wrong with a ballot arriving after 5PM November 5th, so long as it was postmarked before the cutoff.
So the laws were followed, no contradiction, just a selective lack of understanding by a group of bad actors.
[deleted]
Interesting. 2/3rds of Dems believe that Russia tampered with vote tallies for Trump [0]- i.e. stole the 2016 election. Who's being held accountable there?
[0] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
[0] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
I get what you're trying to do here, but I don't think it really worked. The examples you provided are obviously not incitements to violence. If someone wants to twist those words to get us to believe they are, we can look at the facts on the ground: no one became violent because of those words. (Of course that's not possible when you're judging speech immediately after it's said and don't have hindsight.)
On the flip side, quite a bit of violence did occur on the 6th; the speech that got us there was pretty clearly intended to get us there.
On the flip side, quite a bit of violence did occur on the 6th; the speech that got us there was pretty clearly intended to get us there.
It's a thread about an article on Parler. I'm talking about that. Was "the speech that got us there" by Parler?
> The examples you provided are obviously not incitements to violence.
They are more obviously incitements to violence than a post saying they won't be attending the inauguration.
At this point it becomes mostly about what your model of the person speaking is. If you think they are evil you will interpret their intent and communication as evil and if you think they are good you will interpret it as good.
There is no possible methodology that can be used that will end up declaring Trump's comments incitement while declaring AOC's not to be that won't end up becoming become simple partisanship.
They are more obviously incitements to violence than a post saying they won't be attending the inauguration.
At this point it becomes mostly about what your model of the person speaking is. If you think they are evil you will interpret their intent and communication as evil and if you think they are good you will interpret it as good.
There is no possible methodology that can be used that will end up declaring Trump's comments incitement while declaring AOC's not to be that won't end up becoming become simple partisanship.
But in reality we all know why he's not attending, and it isn't because his mom can't drive him or he didn't buy tickets.
Context is king, as always.
Context is king, as always.
These examples are a joke though. No reasonable person thinks "the gloves are off" or "destroy them" coming from AOC is violent intent.
A reasonable person could reasonably interpret endlessly repeated claims that some liberal cabal is literally overthrowing the government and that America will actually die without immediate action, followed by violence that isn't condemned, mixed with blatant encouragement of violent action, with a long history of identical behavior, as violent.
Your examples might work in a vacuum where the reader has no knowledge of common english terms, any cultural context for the language, or any context about who the speaker is (though even then I think the obvious difference would be detected).
A reasonable person could reasonably interpret endlessly repeated claims that some liberal cabal is literally overthrowing the government and that America will actually die without immediate action, followed by violence that isn't condemned, mixed with blatant encouragement of violent action, with a long history of identical behavior, as violent.
Your examples might work in a vacuum where the reader has no knowledge of common english terms, any cultural context for the language, or any context about who the speaker is (though even then I think the obvious difference would be detected).
Suppose Trump had said "the gloves are off" and "destroy them" in his speech? Would that count as inciting violence or not?
I don't think "the gloves are off" can be an incitement of violence im any context at all. Even a violent one. It only means "it is time to increase the intensity of my efforts in this context". That context could be a fight or a colouring book competition. The term is origin agnostic and nothing to do with boxing.
If he said "destroy them" as people are out destroying things, yes obviously. Or if he's been ranting about stolen elections and fraud and calling for action.
If he said "fight them, in the polls | marketplace of ideas! Destroy them!" or something then obviously not.
Trying to pretend any of this is like, too ambiguous to really make a call on, is a joke. Anybody can spot the difference.
If he said "destroy them" as people are out destroying things, yes obviously. Or if he's been ranting about stolen elections and fraud and calling for action.
If he said "fight them, in the polls | marketplace of ideas! Destroy them!" or something then obviously not.
Trying to pretend any of this is like, too ambiguous to really make a call on, is a joke. Anybody can spot the difference.
There is actually a test for incitement set out in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio - the standard is whether speech is likely to produce imminent lawless action.
Here, the question is whether a rational person in Trump’s position could have known that directing people to the capital and telling them illegal activity was going on inside are likely to promote specific lawless action at that destination, regardless of the specific words used or whether the type of violence is specified.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/01/08/a-civilian-s-g... has a larger primer.
Here, the question is whether a rational person in Trump’s position could have known that directing people to the capital and telling them illegal activity was going on inside are likely to promote specific lawless action at that destination, regardless of the specific words used or whether the type of violence is specified.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/01/08/a-civilian-s-g... has a larger primer.
You may disagree, but the source and context do matter. If I say 'we should nuke the moon' people laugh and move on. If Trump says it's a completely different thing.
Trump spent years peddling lies and conspiracy theories, and getting right up to the incite violence line. His attempts to keep white nationalist on his side, by repeatedly having to be prodded to denounce them after showing some weird support is a problem. So yeah, if he said those things, it absolutely would count and may not count with someone else.
Trump spent years peddling lies and conspiracy theories, and getting right up to the incite violence line. His attempts to keep white nationalist on his side, by repeatedly having to be prodded to denounce them after showing some weird support is a problem. So yeah, if he said those things, it absolutely would count and may not count with someone else.
The context of the speech, the person speaking the words and the people listening to them all matter.
The mainstream media was complicit in arguing for the Iraq War, which resulted in the deaths of nearly a million people and is still ongoing in the form of the Syrian Civil War.
Are you for shutting down the New York Times, then? The violence they’ve facilitated dwarfs that of the recent events.
Edit: in case you doubt me, here’s a pretty damning article:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq...
Are you for shutting down the New York Times, then? The violence they’ve facilitated dwarfs that of the recent events.
Edit: in case you doubt me, here’s a pretty damning article:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq...
> The mainstream media was complicit in arguing for the Iraq War
So was conservative media - why single out only the mainstream media?
So was conservative media - why single out only the mainstream media?
I think you are missing the point of my comment. I didn’t single out the mainstream media, I used the Times as an example. The same would apply to any media source that “invited violence.”
[deleted]
[deleted]
The problem here is that private companies are doing something that only democratically legitimized state authorities should be doing, deciding what is allowed or not allowed.
Otherwise we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control.
Freedom of speech means that here is no monopolistic power (such as the government) that has final say on restricting speech. However, it doesn't mean that you, as a private citizen or free-market-participant, have to aid and abet all speech that is directed at you. If someone tells me the Earth as flat, I do not have to give his ideas equal weight if I do not believe they deserve it, and I should not be compelled to help him espouse his beliefs either.
You're describing the status quo, and even that falls apart a little. There are already exemptions, like businesses being forbidden to discriminate based on "protected class", utility companies cannot refuse service to customers they do not like (as long as those customers pay), emergency rooms cannot refuse service to people they do not like, and so on.
What we have here is a small group of companies exerting quasi-monopoly power; Apple and Google controlling "apps" or Twitter and Facebook controlling "social media". Sure, they have some smaller competitors technically, just like East Germany had some smaller political parties technically.
If it was up to me, I'd change the status quo: Let FAAGT decide if they want to be publishers, no limited liability, or open platforms, limited liability but at the same time they have to agree to Freedom of Speech for all, unless it's criminal speech like incitement to violence, or some narrow additional predefined exemptions such as the option to not allow pornography or nudity or gore.
And then, if Parler fails to moderate their content again and leaves up criminal stuff, it's the job of law enforcement and courts to not only sanction the people who abused Parler to commit these crimes, but also the state to sanction Parler.
What we have here is a small group of companies exerting quasi-monopoly power; Apple and Google controlling "apps" or Twitter and Facebook controlling "social media". Sure, they have some smaller competitors technically, just like East Germany had some smaller political parties technically.
If it was up to me, I'd change the status quo: Let FAAGT decide if they want to be publishers, no limited liability, or open platforms, limited liability but at the same time they have to agree to Freedom of Speech for all, unless it's criminal speech like incitement to violence, or some narrow additional predefined exemptions such as the option to not allow pornography or nudity or gore.
And then, if Parler fails to moderate their content again and leaves up criminal stuff, it's the job of law enforcement and courts to not only sanction the people who abused Parler to commit these crimes, but also the state to sanction Parler.
What is "FAAGT"?
I dropped the Netflix N in FAANG and added a T. Netflix is out of scope because they are an editorialized publishing platform without liability shield already. And added Twitter, which usually isn't big enough for FAANG, but in this context, by reach and influence, they deserve to be in the list. Could have been less lazy and just spelled it out. Sorry for the confusion.
[deleted]
I'm guessing "Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Google, Twitter"
You've been drinking the Kool-Aid liability is no-cure all solution, these platforms will merely cease to exist.
I agree that they have quasi-monopoly powers, there are other platforms that have this though, they are now basically modern forms of Press & Media. Editorial decisions whether to publish or not and whether to self or government regulate are issues the world has experience with. The difference is in the scale and the speed at which these platforms can disseminate information. There is no clear cut solution (you'll see this if you look into press & media regulation) and society needs to decide how to move forward.
I’m not here to argue or anything, but I vaguely recall from reading from the federalist papers way back in high school that free expression without fear of reprisal was what we were going for. Is that not the goal? I feel like some really distorted arguments have flooded the internet recently, and I’m doubting my own recollection now.
In practice, the American revolution did not come about through open debate:
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/on-the-rudeness-of-mobs-pogue
'On October 25, the freemen of Essex County, New Jersey, proclaimed that anyone who adhered to the Stamp Act should be cast out of polite society, that decent people should have “no Communication with any such Person, nor speak with them on any Occasion unless it be to inform them of their Vileness.” This was not an isolated view. One writer to a Pennsylvania paper suggested, in language typical of the time, that a man paying stamp duties should be “branded with eternal infamy and reproach,” and cast out. “Let him be alone in the world—let him wish to associate with the wild beasts of some dark loathsome cave.”'
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/on-the-rudeness-of-mobs-pogue
'On October 25, the freemen of Essex County, New Jersey, proclaimed that anyone who adhered to the Stamp Act should be cast out of polite society, that decent people should have “no Communication with any such Person, nor speak with them on any Occasion unless it be to inform them of their Vileness.” This was not an isolated view. One writer to a Pennsylvania paper suggested, in language typical of the time, that a man paying stamp duties should be “branded with eternal infamy and reproach,” and cast out. “Let him be alone in the world—let him wish to associate with the wild beasts of some dark loathsome cave.”'
Very interesting.
I think this whole debate may finally pierce many people's delusion's of grandeur.
> I vaguely recall from reading from the federalist papers way back in high school that free expression without fear of reprisal
... from government.
I will add that even with regards to the government, there are limits to free speech — falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is the archetypal example.
Some people seem to think that freedom of speech is something that can be broadly forced upon private organizations, and that’s simply not true.
If folks don’t like companies that, in their opinion, unreasonably restrict speech, then I suggest they vote with their dollars, their attention, and maybe their work (e.g., via competitors).
... from government.
I will add that even with regards to the government, there are limits to free speech — falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is the archetypal example.
Some people seem to think that freedom of speech is something that can be broadly forced upon private organizations, and that’s simply not true.
If folks don’t like companies that, in their opinion, unreasonably restrict speech, then I suggest they vote with their dollars, their attention, and maybe their work (e.g., via competitors).
> If folks don’t like companies that, in their opinion, unreasonably restrict speech, then I suggest they vote with their dollars, their attention, and maybe their work (via competitors).
Like Gab and Parler! Oh wait...
I generally agree private businesses shouldn’t be forced to do business with anyone they don’t want to, but we’re talking about near monopolies that in many ways wield more power than governments.
Apple and Google each have a monopoly on app distribution on their platforms. Facebook and Twitter combined effectively have a monopoly on social networks.
Like Gab and Parler! Oh wait...
I generally agree private businesses shouldn’t be forced to do business with anyone they don’t want to, but we’re talking about near monopolies that in many ways wield more power than governments.
Apple and Google each have a monopoly on app distribution on their platforms. Facebook and Twitter combined effectively have a monopoly on social networks.
Well, wait and see. The free market doesn't move in 24 hours. There is moderation that is clearly a good idea, moderation that is sketchy and moderation that is overdone. I may be behind the times, but I really don't think an app in the app store is that important. They still have a web site. The AWS ban is more concerning but if they have to they can move to foreign hosting - maybe this will be the push to finally get the Europeans to build up some tech companies.
Big tech have basically declared that 30% of America is unwelcome on their platform. That is overbearing moderation that is likely to provoke a market response. I'd give it 6-12 months to see if they can hold on to a monopoly even leaving that massive slice of the market in play.
Big tech have basically declared that 30% of America is unwelcome on their platform. That is overbearing moderation that is likely to provoke a market response. I'd give it 6-12 months to see if they can hold on to a monopoly even leaving that massive slice of the market in play.
AWS isn’t anywhere close to a monopoly and has one of the most lax AUPs in the game. These services can also self-host like the olden days.
As for Apple, yes. They do have a monopoly over their app platforms. Either a more robust PWA support framework or side loading needs to be a priority on iOS. I wouldn’t consider Google as having a monopoly over app distribution as you can sideload apps on Android and Android has (from what I’ve heard) well-rounded PWA support.
As for Apple, yes. They do have a monopoly over their app platforms. Either a more robust PWA support framework or side loading needs to be a priority on iOS. I wouldn’t consider Google as having a monopoly over app distribution as you can sideload apps on Android and Android has (from what I’ve heard) well-rounded PWA support.
Gab and Parler are free to run their own datacenters. It has nothing to do with “monopolies”, which come and go.
Then those datacentres would be deplatformed from the Internet.
At this point, their only option to survive would be to build their own new internet. And that would need power/spectrum/land or other things that could be taken away from them by determined enough activism.
Maybe they could survive for a while by moving to a decentralised P2P/blockchain system of some kind. But that could potentially be blocked at an ISP level.
At this point, their only option to survive would be to build their own new internet. And that would need power/spectrum/land or other things that could be taken away from them by determined enough activism.
Maybe they could survive for a while by moving to a decentralised P2P/blockchain system of some kind. But that could potentially be blocked at an ISP level.
> Then those datacentres would be deplatformed from the Internet.
A few years ago I heard some people say we needed net neutrality. Republicans were against it.
A few years ago I heard some people say we needed net neutrality. Republicans were against it.
I didn’t mention AWS.
I think to some degree Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter being as successful they are in their verticals and also being fairly progressive is not a coincidence. They have to attract the best talent in the world, which will not only be people that come from different races, but also sexual orientations, religions, genders, and more. You take the beliefs generally being espoused on Parler and some of that is fundamentally antithetical to the progressive ideologies that even allow these companies to be leading players in their fields. Describing these companies as monopolies is unfair because most of them are simply doing work miles ahead of competitors (Apple for example). Choosing to be tolerant isn't an arbitrary choice. It's probably at the core of their success. So even if a conservative ecosystem pops up to support Parler I believe the reason it doesn't exist already is because of the lack of talent. Same reason why so many smart Jewish scientists left Nazi Germany—intolerance leaves a lot of value and talent on the table, which is what you will need to outcompete others.
> I will add that even with regards to the government, there are limits to free speech — falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is the archetypal example.
Note that when this phrase was originally used, it was to justify imprisoning people who distributed flyers opposing the draft in WW1, and the supreme court later partially overturned it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
Note that when this phrase was originally used, it was to justify imprisoning people who distributed flyers opposing the draft in WW1, and the supreme court later partially overturned it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
> Some people seem to think that freedom of speech is something that can be broadly forced upon private organizations, and that’s simply not true.
Why not? Private companies must respect your rights, like your right not to be discriminated against, so why can‘t they be forced to respect your right to free speech? Just because the status quo of the legal ecosystem is not ready to handle this edge-cases doesn‘t mean it can‘t be made to do it with some adjustments.
Why not? Private companies must respect your rights, like your right not to be discriminated against, so why can‘t they be forced to respect your right to free speech? Just because the status quo of the legal ecosystem is not ready to handle this edge-cases doesn‘t mean it can‘t be made to do it with some adjustments.
Because your rights do not override my rights, and if I run an Internet forum, chat service, etc you can’t force me to publish or distribute material I don’t want to. We are all autonomous citizens, including people who own or run communications services.
You can’t sell food without compelled speech (nutrition labels). You can’t sell medicine without compelled speech (side effect warnings).
There’s plenty of existing examples of compelled speech. We could simply say, “you cannot run a public/large forum without allowing mostly free speech”.
There’s plenty of existing examples of compelled speech. We could simply say, “you cannot run a public/large forum without allowing mostly free speech”.
Who gets to define “mostly”? Every public Internet forum censors, whether they say they do or not. Even the *chan sites filter out and delete spam, griefing, child porn, etc. They have to or they would be overwhelmed and useless. The spammers have been advocating for maximalist free speech forever.
I think the compelled speech argument is extremely weak, we have very narrowly defined and specific cases in strictly defined circumstances. This would make it the default for vast swathes of common communications and as I pointed out introduce huge problems with noise, spam and griefing.
I think the compelled speech argument is extremely weak, we have very narrowly defined and specific cases in strictly defined circumstances. This would make it the default for vast swathes of common communications and as I pointed out introduce huge problems with noise, spam and griefing.
There's a difference between you running "a" forum and controlling 99% of the internet. It's good to break up huge monopolies.
Amazon Web Services does not control 99% of the internet.
They control ~32% of cloud services (https://www.parkmycloud.com/blog/aws-vs-azure-vs-google-clou...), and I assume if Parler moved to GCP they would be also blocked.
Question what would MS Azure do?
That mostly leaves Alibaba Cloud (I have no idea if it is available outside China) and "Others" - so a 43%. Not much to choose from considering that the big players have the best prices.
That mostly leaves Alibaba Cloud (I have no idea if it is available outside China) and "Others" - so a 43%. Not much to choose from considering that the big players have the best prices.
This may be slightly off topic... are hosting providers subject to Sec. 230 protections? That is, if they don’t make a good-faith effort to remove illegal content (i.e. incitement of violence, bonus points for elected officials) they can be legally held responsible?
I see what you mean with giving equal weight to all rights, but there are implementation differences. To not discriminate, you’re restricting an action that might be taken. That does not incur cost or new effort. To facilitate speech, you’re compelling an action to happen that someone may not want to do, especially one that doesn’t provide any benefit to them and may incur additional costs.
The right of free expression is guaranteed by the first amendment by restricting the government from infringing upon your right. It doesn’t say the government or anyone else has to give you a microphone.
The right of free expression is guaranteed by the first amendment by restricting the government from infringing upon your right. It doesn’t say the government or anyone else has to give you a microphone.
What about compelling a company to respect a citizen‘s rights? Do you find that fair? Companies are already compelled to do all sorts of things for the government or customers.
In order to ban me from a platform you have to take (negative) action towards me. My content is already on that network. Compelling to respect my rights means compelling a company to not negatively act against me.
In order to ban me from a platform you have to take (negative) action towards me. My content is already on that network. Compelling to respect my rights means compelling a company to not negatively act against me.
They are not compelled to do anything for general citizens. They are in some cases compelled to treat certain classes of people the same way they treat other classes. That doesn’t compel them to do something they never would do, it compels them to do the things they already do for some, for all.
Those businesses are also free to close up shop if they can’t handle it. If they are dumb enough to explicitly say they don’t want to do something for a certain legally protected class of individual solely due to their belonging to that class, then IMO they deserve to lose their shirt.
Those businesses are also free to close up shop if they can’t handle it. If they are dumb enough to explicitly say they don’t want to do something for a certain legally protected class of individual solely due to their belonging to that class, then IMO they deserve to lose their shirt.
>Why not?
That would amount to involuntary servitude, which is not permitted by the 13th Amendment.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
That would amount to involuntary servitude, which is not permitted by the 13th Amendment.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
>I will add that even with regards to the government, there are limits to free speech — falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is the archetypal example.
Also see the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v Ohio (1969), which excluded from protection speech "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
Also see the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v Ohio (1969), which excluded from protection speech "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
The whole "if you don't like it, vote with your dollars" angle doesn't really work when a handful of companies own, control and host 99.999% of social media. The power that these private companies wield is greater than the power of any government. They're not democratic. They are driven by the unending pursuit of growth. They have no moral compass, so their rules are in their own private interest. They dodge taxes, support populist movements to virtue signal, and they quietly collude with governments that wish to spy on their journalists and citizens so they can "disappear" them for wrongthink. Their rules are "whatever is best for us".
I don't know what the answer is, but having seen these large private companies censor rational discussion of scientific fact, this scares me.
I don't know what the answer is, but having seen these large private companies censor rational discussion of scientific fact, this scares me.
> The whole "if you don't like it, vote with your dollars" angle doesn't really work when a handful of companies own, control and host 99.999% of social media.
"Voting with your dollars" means taking your dollars and giving them to the 0.001% that agree with you. Then this will strengthen them a little so they may become 0.0011% or whatever.
Any large social movement should be able to support a share of the economy commensurate to its size, complete with their own journalists, printing presses, leaflet distributors, radio stations, TV shows, phone factories, app stores and social media apps, or whatever communication infrastructure they want to use.
Of course that requires lots of work, but if that work is divided by the number of people involved, it becomes manageable again (after all, the whole rest of society manages just fine).
If people want to skip that work and instead rely on others to provide them with everything, they shouldn't be surprised if they don't get exactly what they want.
"Voting with your dollars" means taking your dollars and giving them to the 0.001% that agree with you. Then this will strengthen them a little so they may become 0.0011% or whatever.
Any large social movement should be able to support a share of the economy commensurate to its size, complete with their own journalists, printing presses, leaflet distributors, radio stations, TV shows, phone factories, app stores and social media apps, or whatever communication infrastructure they want to use.
Of course that requires lots of work, but if that work is divided by the number of people involved, it becomes manageable again (after all, the whole rest of society manages just fine).
If people want to skip that work and instead rely on others to provide them with everything, they shouldn't be surprised if they don't get exactly what they want.
Well, but remember what happened when they voted with their "dollars", Parler was blocked.
This looks like a internet version of witch hunt.
This looks like a internet version of witch hunt.
Voting for Parler is not enough if you don't also vote for an app store that will offer Parler for download and a hosting provider that will allow them to use their infrastructure etc.
To use an analogy closer to the founding of the United States: if you want to publish a radical new newspaper, you need to be prepared to buy your own printing press and build up your own network of stores, because the existing printers and sellers may not want to support you.
To use an analogy closer to the founding of the United States: if you want to publish a radical new newspaper, you need to be prepared to buy your own printing press and build up your own network of stores, because the existing printers and sellers may not want to support you.
Analogy with printing press would have been:
There are just 3 printing presses and all of them are controlled by people that are democrats.
You are a republican, how do you publish your political pieces?
You have to create a 4th printing press from ground up (because people that have printing press parts are refusing to work with you).
Distribution is a more appropriate in this case.
You are a republican, how do you publish your political pieces?
You have to create a 4th printing press from ground up (because people that have printing press parts are refusing to work with you).
Distribution is a more appropriate in this case.
One could argue this is not reprisal and more of "no shoes no shirt no service." These people aren't providing Parlor services for free. They are doing it as part of a mutual partnership to profit, and if they choose to no longer benfit/profit off of the business shouldn't they have the right? I mean, Apple supports many progressive initiatives like equal rights campaigns, and that is part of the brand. Shouldn't Apple be allowed to maintain that brand image? Supporting a company that is antithetical to that brand image may be a move that ultimately increases their shareholder value for all one knows.
Take Fox News as an example. They're not going to allow their platform to be used for liberal propaganda, and most likely also vet any advertisers. They aren't expected to just allow any content to be broadcast.
I guess a devil's advocate viewpoint could be that some of these services are platforms, but then again the reasons given for some of these bans aren't necessarily strictly political.
Take Fox News as an example. They're not going to allow their platform to be used for liberal propaganda, and most likely also vet any advertisers. They aren't expected to just allow any content to be broadcast.
I guess a devil's advocate viewpoint could be that some of these services are platforms, but then again the reasons given for some of these bans aren't necessarily strictly political.
I would argue that there's no point appealing to authority since what we are going for changes with the times, but there's a fundamental difference between reprisal and aid. Say you wanted to host a website that was explaining the evils of cloud hosting, and you did this on EC2 (AWS). Amazon has every right to have in their terms clauses that disallow such content which they do not agree with. If they do host it they are doing damage to themselves, and if they do not host it they are simply not supporting an attack on cloud hosting. The act of choosing not to engage in business is not an attack in itself.
I guess, I mean that’s the tails-you-lose of it. It does feel as though somebody’s bought up all the printing presses, and in the face of scrutiny for doing so is disrupting swaths of the opposition party’s press apparatus as the incoming party takes over. I mean Amazon isn’t any ol’ business, but one with great reach facing historic threats of regulation.
It just doesn’t feel like the right thing for our republic. It feels like foul play, and I guess my recourse is at the ballot box.
I guess I think the points raised here and elsewhere about what businesses can do are specious. We still try to keep things fair.
It just doesn’t feel like the right thing for our republic. It feels like foul play, and I guess my recourse is at the ballot box.
I guess I think the points raised here and elsewhere about what businesses can do are specious. We still try to keep things fair.
In a few days, Parler is going to find a new hosting provider, and the networks (also private companies) will refuse to route to that hosting provider and the banks (also private companies) will close their accounts, unless they fall in line and ban Parler as well.
> and the networks (also private companies) will refuse to route to that hosting provider
There was once something called "Net Neutrality". As I recall conservatives were strongly against it.
There was once something called "Net Neutrality". As I recall conservatives were strongly against it.
Perhaps in theory, but in practice (in the US) freedom of speech is limited to government intrusion only, as defined by the constitution’s first amendment. There is no legal application, to private entities, of free speech.
When freedom of speech was codified as a value in the constitution, it made sense because the government is realistically the only entity that could engage in mass censorship. Nobody predicted a private company would get to that point, which is why those laws don't exist.
We must decide if that needs to change.
We must decide if that needs to change.
That's certainly untrue, at that time access to any sort of mass communication was even more controlled by a few private actors. There were not all that many major printing presses out there and a limited number of publishers would have truly controlled your only access to dissemiating information to a significant number of people besides actual in-person speech. And they certainly did choose what they were willing to publish.
>Nobody predicted a private company would get to that point
Not quite, the East India Company is a counter example.
Not quite, the East India Company is a counter example.
The example of the EIC was used as an argument against the British Crown by proponents of American independence. Source: Dalrymple's The Anarchy.
The East India Company was processing (and reading) the mail of hundreds of millions of people, and freely choosing who is allowed to continue sending mail?
I’m sorry but that just isn’t true. The framing generation was worried about the tyranny of the masses, global corporations, religious authorities, and many more threats to self-governance.
That line of thinking has no historical basis in the US. In past times mass publishers, large newspapers, had every bit as much influence.
Influence yes, but they weren't able to censor communication between two private citizens. Social media is the new telephone.
I wonder what fraction of the crackpots and conspiracy theorists on twitter would have had the wherewithall to start their own newspapers, though. The barrier to mass communication is so much lower than it was in the 18th century.
Actually your portrayal is not that far off from history.
The Boston Massacre was greatly exaggerated, really only five rioters were killed and arguably the British shot them after violent provocation. Paul Revere's engraving was fiction and portrayed them as murdering the colonists in cold blood, which planted the seeds of the American Revolution.
As far as the barrier to mass communication being lower, perhaps, but mass communication was more prominent in the 18th century than you might think. Pamphlets were fairly inexpensive easily duplicated short-form propaganda, and were read aloud in taverns and churches. Communication wasn't "instant" but it was possible, and the social aspects would have made it more like Twitter and Facebook than I think we'd like to admit.
The Boston Massacre was greatly exaggerated, really only five rioters were killed and arguably the British shot them after violent provocation. Paul Revere's engraving was fiction and portrayed them as murdering the colonists in cold blood, which planted the seeds of the American Revolution.
As far as the barrier to mass communication being lower, perhaps, but mass communication was more prominent in the 18th century than you might think. Pamphlets were fairly inexpensive easily duplicated short-form propaganda, and were read aloud in taverns and churches. Communication wasn't "instant" but it was possible, and the social aspects would have made it more like Twitter and Facebook than I think we'd like to admit.
Yes, I'm aware of that. There was plenty of nonsense and propaganda printed, but I don't think it's possible to deny that twitter gives more people a bigger platform than pamphlets ever did. Otherwise why are people even using twitter instead of printing pamphlets?
> We must decide if that needs to change.
This will require either amending the constitution to strip companies of their 1A rights, OR the supreme court ruling that companies are not people and have no 1A rights. Both are tall orders in my view, with far-reaching direct and 2nd-order effects.
This will require either amending the constitution to strip companies of their 1A rights, OR the supreme court ruling that companies are not people and have no 1A rights. Both are tall orders in my view, with far-reaching direct and 2nd-order effects.
Not necessarily. The phone company can't cut you off for what you said on the phone.
> supreme court ruling that companies are not people
Wait, in the US companies are considered people?
Wait, in the US companies are considered people?
I was channeling Mitt Romney ("Corporations are people, my friend"[1]). But companies, trusts, PACs, SuperPACs, country clubs, HOA's, etc are legal persons. The supreme court ruled all persons (birthed or incorporated) have free speech rights, and additionally, money is free speech[2].
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-says-cor...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-says-cor...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
No, but they are collections of people and as such have certain rights.
Banning someone from twitter is still not mass censorship though. The ideas can still be passed around just fine over snail mail
This is true with regards to the Constitution and the 1st amendment. That said, the US has a strong ethos around freedom of speech that goes beyond just gov't intrusion.
Is big tech within their right to censor how they see fit? Yes.
Is it antithetical to the American ethos? Probably.
Is big tech within their right to censor how they see fit? Yes.
Is it antithetical to the American ethos? Probably.
One would expect american companies upholding values of its country which enabled them to prosper. None of them would exist today if free speech was not possible when they started.
I think that private entities being able to limit the speech that is performed on their property is an expression of their own free speech, and should be protected by the right that protects that speech from intrusion by the government.
I also think that us being forced to rely on private platforms for public discourse is a grave threat to democracy. There must be public forums that are strong enough to be viable and legitimate places for the majority of public political discourse to take place without relying on private institutions.
I also think that us being forced to rely on private platforms for public discourse is a grave threat to democracy. There must be public forums that are strong enough to be viable and legitimate places for the majority of public political discourse to take place without relying on private institutions.
It's an "expression of their own free speech" that - thanks to Section 230 - comes without any of the restrictions or liability that would apply if it was actually their own speech. They're very much getting to have their cake and eat it here.
Then they have a baseless false expectation.
Speech in the US has always had limits, the idea that America has pushed for completely unlimited free speech is not true, and incitement and false statements of fact are some of the cornerstone cases in which speech loses its protection under the 1st Amendment[0].
Speech has never been, and will never be, completely protected without exceptions in the US.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
Speech has never been, and will never be, completely protected without exceptions in the US.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
You are comparing the choices of an individual to those of the app distribution mechanisms which are nearly-universal.
It's true that you _can_ find Parler out of those app stores, but a significant fraction of people would not be able to do so; nor would people encounter Parler as a popular app they might consider installing.
(The web hosting is a different issue since there are a bunch of hosting options.)
It's true that you _can_ find Parler out of those app stores, but a significant fraction of people would not be able to do so; nor would people encounter Parler as a popular app they might consider installing.
(The web hosting is a different issue since there are a bunch of hosting options.)
>free-market-participant
We're talking about the situation in the United States, not a free market. If there were viable alternatives, nobody would care about being blocked from Twitter or Google or Facebook. The fact that these monopolies collude in their censorship campaign makes the impact that much more severe. The situation with these monopolies colluding to block an aspiring competitor is clearly an anti-trust issue.
We're talking about the situation in the United States, not a free market. If there were viable alternatives, nobody would care about being blocked from Twitter or Google or Facebook. The fact that these monopolies collude in their censorship campaign makes the impact that much more severe. The situation with these monopolies colluding to block an aspiring competitor is clearly an anti-trust issue.
The greatest delusion free-market proponents seem to have is that there will always be a "viable alternative" in a free market. And that there will be no monopolies.
There's literally no reason for a "viable alternative" to not appear. I mean, Parler is a "viable alternative" to Twitter, isn't it? It got kicked off AWS? Go ahead, and create your own viable alternative, there's literally nothing stopping you, just like in a "free market".
There's literally no reason for a "viable alternative" to not appear. I mean, Parler is a "viable alternative" to Twitter, isn't it? It got kicked off AWS? Go ahead, and create your own viable alternative, there's literally nothing stopping you, just like in a "free market".
You don’t need to create your own alternative to AWS. There are a large number of cloud infrastructure and hosting providers around the world. And multiple competitors to AWS in the US alone.
Yeah, there are three large ones in US: AWS, Azure and GCP.
And considering that Google banned the app GCP is also out of the question.
BTW. You know that the largest cloud provides in the world are also the ones I mentioned above? There is only Alibaba Cloud that is outside US and all the rest are just small businesses (that might just resell what the big three is providing).
And what would be next? Let's block the "new Parler" on the DNS or routing level - build yourself a new internet?
I hate far right wing and also hate far left wing, but I will protect both right to speak.
And considering that Google banned the app GCP is also out of the question.
BTW. You know that the largest cloud provides in the world are also the ones I mentioned above? There is only Alibaba Cloud that is outside US and all the rest are just small businesses (that might just resell what the big three is providing).
And what would be next? Let's block the "new Parler" on the DNS or routing level - build yourself a new internet?
I hate far right wing and also hate far left wing, but I will protect both right to speak.
You don't need a cloud provider to host a website, and there are cloud providers outside of AWS, Azure and GCP. Oracle, IBM, and probably still hundreds of shared hosting providers. At the end of the day you can also setup bare metal servers with your own fiber connection. It might be a little extra work/cost but to describe AWS, Azure, and GCP as the only ways to host a website is disingenuous.
1) Oracle also provides Cloud infrastructure. And Larry Ellison has hosted fundraisers for Donald Trump. Perhaps Parler should talk to Oracle.
2) Smaller providers like Digital Ocean are in fact not reselling the larger services, but you’re right that folks like Heroku are based on AWS.
3) They all have the right to speak. But private enterprises also have the right to decide for themselves if they want to do business with them. That too is a freedom of expression. It’s unclear to me why you think the far left or far rights freedom should supersede the moderates freedoms.
2) Smaller providers like Digital Ocean are in fact not reselling the larger services, but you’re right that folks like Heroku are based on AWS.
3) They all have the right to speak. But private enterprises also have the right to decide for themselves if they want to do business with them. That too is a freedom of expression. It’s unclear to me why you think the far left or far rights freedom should supersede the moderates freedoms.
I think the next argument that you’re going to make is well these tech companies are monopolies and therefore the government needs to regulate them in a way that ensures they are platforms for even the extreme left and right to speak.
But they aren’t monopolies. AWS, Azure, GCP, Oracle, Digital Ocean.
Sure, there are only a handful of news networks in the US, just like there are only a handful of cloud infrastructure providers. But the first amendment doesn’t guarantee that everyone gets their own hour on the nightly news, and it doesn’t force private corporations in general to do business with all comers.
I don’t have to invite QAnon into my house, and I certainly don’t need to bake QAnon a wedding cake. And neither do AWS, Azure or Digital Ocean.
But they aren’t monopolies. AWS, Azure, GCP, Oracle, Digital Ocean.
Sure, there are only a handful of news networks in the US, just like there are only a handful of cloud infrastructure providers. But the first amendment doesn’t guarantee that everyone gets their own hour on the nightly news, and it doesn’t force private corporations in general to do business with all comers.
I don’t have to invite QAnon into my house, and I certainly don’t need to bake QAnon a wedding cake. And neither do AWS, Azure or Digital Ocean.
> I don’t have to invite QAnon into my house, and I certainly don’t need to bake QAnon a wedding cake. And neither do AWS, Azure or Digital Ocean.
OK, but first you don't know if it is QAnon and second, are you also allowed not to bake wedding cake for a black couple, or maybe for Jewish one?
It is your freedom, right? So where is the line you can't cross? For me it is: if you open business you have to deal with everyone, sorry. If you don't like it, don't open a business.
You just need to follow the law, if courts say that "you can't sell wedding cakes to QAnon" you follow that, but until there is such law...
OK, but first you don't know if it is QAnon and second, are you also allowed not to bake wedding cake for a black couple, or maybe for Jewish one?
It is your freedom, right? So where is the line you can't cross? For me it is: if you open business you have to deal with everyone, sorry. If you don't like it, don't open a business.
You just need to follow the law, if courts say that "you can't sell wedding cakes to QAnon" you follow that, but until there is such law...
It's all the way up to the banks though, Visa and Mastercard are deplatforming people too.
Only if there is collusion opposed to simultaneous independent consideration.
> The fact that these monopolies collude in their censorship campaign
Can you explain what you mean here? I wasn’t aware that tech companies worked with one another when choosing who or what to ban.
Can you explain what you mean here? I wasn’t aware that tech companies worked with one another when choosing who or what to ban.
Not OP. I don't think they "collude" in the traditional sense.
But every time one of the entities takes some decision or step or action, whether censorship or otherwise, it makes it a little bit more excusable and easier for others to do it and justify it.
E.g. (hypothetical)
1. Reddit bans /r/ABC for "TOS violations".
2. It's news and many reporters report on it across various articles. Some say it's due to "repeated" "alleged" "hate speech" violations, whether true or not. Probably 50% true, who knows.
3. ABC makes its own website and has a mailing list from some mail newsletter provider X because that's just what you do when you have a site and need to keep in touch with visitors/members.
4. Activists on Twitter notice. Outrage mob starts. "@X mail provider hosting known hate-speech movement" "@X mail provider...did you know you're hosting known white supremacists?" "Everybody, please stop using @X, they're supporting white supremacists!" "@AWS please look into what @X is using your infrastructure for!" ...all citing some selective articles as legitimacy.
5. Articles get written about a "movement" to have X drop service for controversial and "alleged" hate-speech website ABC.
6. X mail provider gets pressured and eventually drops service to ABC.
At this point, X mail provider probably won't get many "legitimate", "official" and "mainstream" criticisms for effectively dropping customers (even if all the mail sent by those customers on X's platform is 100% legal and innocent). Nor can their shareholders complain about losing profit because "we can't be seen supporting racists".
The problem is that each time this sort of thing happens, it adds "partial proof" of the accusations without an actual "court-like" process that decides if it's really true or not. After a certain point, it's just accepted and then carries an aura of truth/legitimacy.
Edit. Formatting.
But every time one of the entities takes some decision or step or action, whether censorship or otherwise, it makes it a little bit more excusable and easier for others to do it and justify it.
E.g. (hypothetical)
1. Reddit bans /r/ABC for "TOS violations".
2. It's news and many reporters report on it across various articles. Some say it's due to "repeated" "alleged" "hate speech" violations, whether true or not. Probably 50% true, who knows.
3. ABC makes its own website and has a mailing list from some mail newsletter provider X because that's just what you do when you have a site and need to keep in touch with visitors/members.
4. Activists on Twitter notice. Outrage mob starts. "@X mail provider hosting known hate-speech movement" "@X mail provider...did you know you're hosting known white supremacists?" "Everybody, please stop using @X, they're supporting white supremacists!" "@AWS please look into what @X is using your infrastructure for!" ...all citing some selective articles as legitimacy.
5. Articles get written about a "movement" to have X drop service for controversial and "alleged" hate-speech website ABC.
6. X mail provider gets pressured and eventually drops service to ABC.
At this point, X mail provider probably won't get many "legitimate", "official" and "mainstream" criticisms for effectively dropping customers (even if all the mail sent by those customers on X's platform is 100% legal and innocent). Nor can their shareholders complain about losing profit because "we can't be seen supporting racists".
The problem is that each time this sort of thing happens, it adds "partial proof" of the accusations without an actual "court-like" process that decides if it's really true or not. After a certain point, it's just accepted and then carries an aura of truth/legitimacy.
Edit. Formatting.
I’ll give you a concrete example. I used to enjoy a popular anti-Obesity subreddit. People in it were impolite, but it was never worse than old-fashioned “your momma is so fat” type of humor.
It was banned from Reddit for being “hate speech” and in fact you can no longer suggest that obesity is something to be ashamed of —- on nearly any platform! Including GitHub. (but you are allowed to mock mock cigarette smokers or meth tweakers).
It was banned from Reddit for being “hate speech” and in fact you can no longer suggest that obesity is something to be ashamed of —- on nearly any platform! Including GitHub. (but you are allowed to mock mock cigarette smokers or meth tweakers).
Which subreddit are you referring to? Based on your description, it surely can't be /r/fatpeoplehate.
He's being purposefully disingenuous. It was banned for good reason, alongside racist subs like "CoonTown".
It literally had hate in the name.
This is a battle of the fundamental nature & limits of free speech vs. the fundamental nature & limits of private property.
Generally speaking, hate speech can be allowed free speech, but not advocacy or incitement of specific violent acts. As the platform owner, and absent additional guidance from courts or Congress, private companies have no choice but to make decisions about what can be done with their private property. No company that is not a "common carrier" is obligated to let their infrastructure be used for a specific purpose. If you don't like the choices they make, the root cause isn't with the companies, it's with the laws themselves.
There is a sort of slider here between speech & property. If you dislike companies controlling their platforms as they see fit & want the slider to move in favor of free speech, it moves against freedoms of private property.
Generally speaking, hate speech can be allowed free speech, but not advocacy or incitement of specific violent acts. As the platform owner, and absent additional guidance from courts or Congress, private companies have no choice but to make decisions about what can be done with their private property. No company that is not a "common carrier" is obligated to let their infrastructure be used for a specific purpose. If you don't like the choices they make, the root cause isn't with the companies, it's with the laws themselves.
There is a sort of slider here between speech & property. If you dislike companies controlling their platforms as they see fit & want the slider to move in favor of free speech, it moves against freedoms of private property.
Neither the convenience of a given format or the ignorance of an audience to format alternatives suggests there is legal or governmental interference. In short, your sadness at Google does not imply improper conduct alone.
The current generation not knowing how to communicate without social media does not imply or suggest that social media is necessary for communication. If a person believes their values and entitlements limited by private entities they find alternatives not facilitated by those private entities, as in alternatives to social media.
The current generation not knowing how to communicate without social media does not imply or suggest that social media is necessary for communication. If a person believes their values and entitlements limited by private entities they find alternatives not facilitated by those private entities, as in alternatives to social media.
I'm not sure what you mean by my sadness at google. Could you elaborate?
I too agree that social media as a common medium probably does not, in itself, confer "common carrier" status on it. Even if many have been bought up by Facebook, there is still room for competitors to arise that provide alternative. This is not like ATT&T before its breakup where it was literally the only option. Heck, nothing stops someone from rolling their own stack on a local PC or local "cloud" and running their own social media service there, with mobile friendly sites that don't need an Android or Apple apps no need to rely on 3rd party cloud infrastructure. Then they would only be relying on the common-carrier ISP infrastructure that couldn't ban them for content. They aren't entitled to use the private infrastructure services or content distribution networks of other private organizations.
I too agree that social media as a common medium probably does not, in itself, confer "common carrier" status on it. Even if many have been bought up by Facebook, there is still room for competitors to arise that provide alternative. This is not like ATT&T before its breakup where it was literally the only option. Heck, nothing stops someone from rolling their own stack on a local PC or local "cloud" and running their own social media service there, with mobile friendly sites that don't need an Android or Apple apps no need to rely on 3rd party cloud infrastructure. Then they would only be relying on the common-carrier ISP infrastructure that couldn't ban them for content. They aren't entitled to use the private infrastructure services or content distribution networks of other private organizations.
> only democratically legitimized state authorities should be doing, deciding what is allowed or not allowed
Woah, what?! No, this is entirely antithetical to "freedom of speech". The government should absolutely NOT be determining what is and is not allowed speech.
> Otherwise we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control
The market will decide right? Companies are made up of individuals. Their customers are as well. The past 30 years is evidence of that.
Woah, what?! No, this is entirely antithetical to "freedom of speech". The government should absolutely NOT be determining what is and is not allowed speech.
> Otherwise we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control
The market will decide right? Companies are made up of individuals. Their customers are as well. The past 30 years is evidence of that.
The government does determine what is and isn't allowed speech. Libel is not allowed speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. You can get in trouble inducing others to commit crimes. Etc.
Libel is not a crime, it is a tort. You may be sued by someone you defame, but no government entity or agent may imprison or fine you.
Wikipedia tells me there is such a thing as criminal libel, although it is rarely prosecuted. But that's beside the point IMO. I omitted that libel generally does not fall under criminal law because IMO the fact that the legal system can be used by private individuals to enforce libel laws makes them a government restriction on free speech.
Not in the US. Or maybe you could link a source you claim to have?
The government does not originate tort claims of libel. It is there to mediate disputes that citizens bring against each other. Because the next best thing is people committing acts of violence against each other.
The government does not originate tort claims of libel. It is there to mediate disputes that citizens bring against each other. Because the next best thing is people committing acts of violence against each other.
Sure. Like I said, it's Wikipedia, so take it as you will:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law
The relevant section:
"Criminal libel is rarely prosecuted but exists on the books in many states, and is constitutionally permitted in circumstances essentially identical to those where civil libel liability is constitutional."
Again, this is really beside the point IMO, as I mentioned before. I only brought it up due to being an unreconstituted pedant, unable to help myself.
The relevant section:
"Criminal libel is rarely prosecuted but exists on the books in many states, and is constitutionally permitted in circumstances essentially identical to those where civil libel liability is constitutional."
Again, this is really beside the point IMO, as I mentioned before. I only brought it up due to being an unreconstituted pedant, unable to help myself.
> The government does determine what is and isn't allowed speech
That's as hyperbolic as my omission is glaring. Yes, there are a few very narrow exceptions made.
I would say, though, that our 1st amendment rights are stronger today than ever.
That's as hyperbolic as my omission is glaring. Yes, there are a few very narrow exceptions made.
I would say, though, that our 1st amendment rights are stronger today than ever.
The important point is that the government has the power to make those exceptions, and exercises that power. It's the difference between absolute free speech and the messy reality we have.
But the initial point was normative, not factual. Beyond narrowly defined limits, the government ought not to be able to police speech, and being democratically elected is not a sufficient check, as John Stuart Mill pointed out long ago.
I will add to that, I believe that in order for a democracy to properly function we need free speech, truly free speech that is. Democracy is not designed to allow the morally righteous side to win power, it is designed to allow the popular majority to win power regardless of what they believe in and the morality of their beliefs. In the U.S. we have a large majority of the public that believes in one thing and another that believe in something radically different and I don’t think we should silence either of them if we want to keep the U.S. truly democratic. The argument that Parlor incites violence is irrelevant in my opinion since violence in this case is the result of free speech which ultimately serves the greater purpose of having a democracy. We should be prepared for the fact that the majority believe in something different than us, even if that something is radically different from what we believe in, and we must accept that and let their voices be heard as well. If we cannot accept what other people are saying than we cannot say the U.S. is truly a democracy since the foundation of that are free speech without limitations.
I’ve been reflecting on this lately as well. 75M people voted for Trump just two months ago, and now he’s been deplatformed from the major social media networks, and the alternate network that some of his supporters were moving to is effectively shut down for weeks/months.
I think you’re right in that the health of a democracy is closely linked to the ability of diverse voices to make themselves heard.
I don’t know what effect these moves will have but I suspect it will not have the intended one.
I think you’re right in that the health of a democracy is closely linked to the ability of diverse voices to make themselves heard.
I don’t know what effect these moves will have but I suspect it will not have the intended one.
These guys have been brainwashed for decades by Fox News, which always claimed the "I can lie about everything because free speech" defense. This is not about diversity of opinions anymore. Their side besieged key democratic institutions such as the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Vice President, with the intention to overthrow the government and to kill democratically elected politicians.
This is not about diversity of opinions anymore. The people who did this need to be persecuted and receive lengthy jail sentences, whoever aided and abetted them needs to be sentenced, and there need to be real and actual consequences. Because if we don't do that, we only show that we are weak, and that you can storm the Capitol without any consequences. What is the lesson you think they will take from that? You think it stops here? Are they encouraged, or discouraged? If nothing happens to them, what do you think they'll do next? This isn't over.
The people who are fanning the flames need their megaphones taken from them. If whole platforms exist for the purpose of encouraging hatred and sedition, these platforms need to be banned. It's not rocket science. Fucking ban Fox News. Block Breitbart. Or drown them in lawsuits and persecute them for every lie they tell. It's either that or fascism. You choose.
This is not about diversity of opinions anymore. The people who did this need to be persecuted and receive lengthy jail sentences, whoever aided and abetted them needs to be sentenced, and there need to be real and actual consequences. Because if we don't do that, we only show that we are weak, and that you can storm the Capitol without any consequences. What is the lesson you think they will take from that? You think it stops here? Are they encouraged, or discouraged? If nothing happens to them, what do you think they'll do next? This isn't over.
The people who are fanning the flames need their megaphones taken from them. If whole platforms exist for the purpose of encouraging hatred and sedition, these platforms need to be banned. It's not rocket science. Fucking ban Fox News. Block Breitbart. Or drown them in lawsuits and persecute them for every lie they tell. It's either that or fascism. You choose.
I am in complete agreement that there must be consequences for the Capitol riot.
> You think it stops here? Are they encouraged, or discouraged? If nothing happens to them, what do you think they'll do next? This isn't over.
I don’t think it stops here. That’s sort of what I was getting at. Will censorship result in less violence or more violence? The assumption is that it turns the temperature down, but where is the precedent for that?
“Free Speech” - not just the technical definition but the culture of it - is a core American value. Having it suppressed so quickly and broadly may actually result in more violence.
I fear that we’re at the beginning of the American “Troubles”
> You think it stops here? Are they encouraged, or discouraged? If nothing happens to them, what do you think they'll do next? This isn't over.
I don’t think it stops here. That’s sort of what I was getting at. Will censorship result in less violence or more violence? The assumption is that it turns the temperature down, but where is the precedent for that?
“Free Speech” - not just the technical definition but the culture of it - is a core American value. Having it suppressed so quickly and broadly may actually result in more violence.
I fear that we’re at the beginning of the American “Troubles”
You will appreciate this article then https://eand.co/they-werent-rioters-they-were-fascists-it-wa...
This article read like a self-parody. The obsession with what words to use. The instant reach for Nazism as the point of reference (Ezra Klein invoking the "Nuremberg defence"?) The conspiracy theories about The Narrative and The Media, all so strangely similar to the nutcases on the other side. The rage at the Establishment. The foaming-at-the-mouth tone. Dave Spart lives!
I will point out that you only talk about stylistic issues and do not actually address the central point of the article, which is that language matters ("terrorist" or "freedom fighter"?) and that the discourse using these words is influenced by it.
A discussion about freedom fighters is a different one than a discussion about terrorists, even though the people involved might have committed the exact same crime (shooting a bunch of people).
As such, designating the mob as American Patriots and the event itself as a "riot" or "insurrection" instead of as a "coup" is - indeed - important and very telling.
A discussion about freedom fighters is a different one than a discussion about terrorists, even though the people involved might have committed the exact same crime (shooting a bunch of people).
As such, designating the mob as American Patriots and the event itself as a "riot" or "insurrection" instead of as a "coup" is - indeed - important and very telling.
A defining feature of this era is that language doesn’t matter, starting with "fake news" in the summer of 2016. Riot/protest, fascist, coup - these terms and more have been co-opted and reflected back at the other side. Same words, different meaning in the opposing context.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
Might the simpler explanation be that liberals tend to be measured in their criticisms of conservatives and perhaps that leads to sometimes underplaying things?
In that case do you also believe that those responsible for propagating news which sparked riots and looting across the country earlier in the year should also be prosecuted? It seems like both sides have incited violence this year yet from your response it seems like you would only like one side to be punished.
> the ability of diverse voices to make themselves heard.
This is the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerant violent, discriminating voices like say, the Proud Boys, that intimidates other diverse groups from participating. Their intolerance becomes mainstream, making society less tolerant over time.
This is the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerant violent, discriminating voices like say, the Proud Boys, that intimidates other diverse groups from participating. Their intolerance becomes mainstream, making society less tolerant over time.
This isn't a problem, it's a feature. You seem to be in a scarcity, learned helplessness mindset: if you're worried about being dependant on companies that you don't believe or trust will govern well then the solution is simple, start your own company so you're the governor; so long as the internet as a platform stays relatively neutral you can do that. If you don't think this is an option, please explain why.
Parler is the right starting their own company in response to Twitter censoring/banning some of their discussions. Parler's current deplatforming indicates that "start your own company so you're the governor" is a borderline unrealistic point of view, since the internet and especially mobile phones are run by mega-corporations that don't support an open platform.
If we look at Parler being dependent on other companies, there are 3 dependencies that bit them in the last few days:
(A) running servers on AWS
(B) distributing Android app through Google Play Store
(C) distributing iPhone app through Apple Store
Parler could and should have avoided the dependency on AWS by hosting with a company more aligned with their views or outside of the US.
However, I cannot in good faith say "Parler should have written their own mobile OS if they want people to use their platform from their phones". I believe Android supports app installation without Google Play. It's a little inconvenient, but I think an extra minute or two of clicking around is an ok price to pay for access to unpopular speech.
However, as far as I know there's no way to have an app on iPhones without Apple's approval. This is a strong point for "even if you start your own company, you're not the governor - 45% of America's phone users can only access your service at the mercy of Apple".
If we look at Parler being dependent on other companies, there are 3 dependencies that bit them in the last few days:
(A) running servers on AWS
(B) distributing Android app through Google Play Store
(C) distributing iPhone app through Apple Store
Parler could and should have avoided the dependency on AWS by hosting with a company more aligned with their views or outside of the US.
However, I cannot in good faith say "Parler should have written their own mobile OS if they want people to use their platform from their phones". I believe Android supports app installation without Google Play. It's a little inconvenient, but I think an extra minute or two of clicking around is an ok price to pay for access to unpopular speech.
However, as far as I know there's no way to have an app on iPhones without Apple's approval. This is a strong point for "even if you start your own company, you're not the governor - 45% of America's phone users can only access your service at the mercy of Apple".
It's not unrealistic. This is the point and value of having competition. If at each layer of the system they won't stand for your beliefs that violence is okay, for example, then you'll have to create the infrastructure at each layer if you meet resistance at each layer. If they're serious enough and organized enough and the rest of society isn't willing to budge, and if the "offenders" aren't willing to reason and adapt their ways to not be violent - and to have open critical thinking dialogue, if they can be un-brainwashed from Trump et al's lies and the lies perpetuated by the duopoly - both sides harmful but the treasonous Republicans (that's not all of them) who are willing to incite violence is obviously the worst of the two - then friction and physical conflict will occur. This will either turn into a civil war, where both sides will need to create the infrastructure including arms and readying defense, or if these people can be reached and government policy be put in place to break apart the duopoly, re-enact things like the Fairness Doctrine so news legally must present both sides of the story to their viewers, along with the core policy proposals of Andrew Yang - Democracy Dollars, Journalism Dollars, Ranked Choice Voting, Freedom Dividend/UBI, etc - then the quality of life of everyone will improve, stress will go down, and dialogue and conversation will become more nuanced and diverse again, not merely the echo chambers of the two narratives of the duopoly that's been captured by industrial complexes and bad actors for many decades extracting as much from society as they can, suffocating everyone slowly but surely.
If you want the convenience afforded by the technology of private companies then you will have to follow their rules; if you show that you're racist while a guest in my house, I'm going to ask you to leave and if you refuse I'm going to call the police to have you removed.
Android does allow side-loading of apps, and Apple has the ability to prevent already installed apps from working. I think ultimately this is a question of whether you want your opponents/"enemies" - those who aren't aligned with you - to have access to the same level of technology as you: is it a good idea to level the playing field or to have an advantage? Arguably it's only good if the owners/controllers of that technology are on a more right/good path than the "other."
I assume in part Parler expected or wanted this deplatforming to happen as free marketing and to rally individuals to the platform, rallying the energy of people feeling persecuted - because enough of them were openly calling for violence and moderators weren't removing those comments/users from the platforms - but they don't seem to be having that sane/reasonable conversation to calm and quell the angry mob - and any "outsider" who attempts to reason with them gets ban/blocked, so it's inevitable it will spillover into the physical world. I feel and think it's good to slow this mob down however possible, even if it angers some of them more - they were already substantial open calls for violence, so it's not like deplatforming was the cause, the cause is Trump et al's lies and propaganda to incite violence; where's Trump ingenuine call for "law and order" after the Capitol was stormed? Answer: Trump told people to go to the Capitol.
If you want the convenience afforded by the technology of private companies then you will have to follow their rules; if you show that you're racist while a guest in my house, I'm going to ask you to leave and if you refuse I'm going to call the police to have you removed.
Android does allow side-loading of apps, and Apple has the ability to prevent already installed apps from working. I think ultimately this is a question of whether you want your opponents/"enemies" - those who aren't aligned with you - to have access to the same level of technology as you: is it a good idea to level the playing field or to have an advantage? Arguably it's only good if the owners/controllers of that technology are on a more right/good path than the "other."
I assume in part Parler expected or wanted this deplatforming to happen as free marketing and to rally individuals to the platform, rallying the energy of people feeling persecuted - because enough of them were openly calling for violence and moderators weren't removing those comments/users from the platforms - but they don't seem to be having that sane/reasonable conversation to calm and quell the angry mob - and any "outsider" who attempts to reason with them gets ban/blocked, so it's inevitable it will spillover into the physical world. I feel and think it's good to slow this mob down however possible, even if it angers some of them more - they were already substantial open calls for violence, so it's not like deplatforming was the cause, the cause is Trump et al's lies and propaganda to incite violence; where's Trump ingenuine call for "law and order" after the Capitol was stormed? Answer: Trump told people to go to the Capitol.
I don't think it is very likely I'll be able to build my own mobile phone to replace Apple, who have banned Parler. Network effects and natural monopolies are real things.
Competition and organizing individuals is also a real thing, arguably there are ~74 million Americans who voted for Trump - which is arguably a large enough market size to cater a product to, which is exactly what Parler has done under the guise of a "free speech" app - which it's not:
'Stop calling it a “free speech app”. Historically Parler is harsher on dissenting political views than any of their competitors. Just, ya know, against the “other side”.' - https://www.reddit.com/r/technews/comments/kts86k/comment/gi...
There's so much learned helplessness, victim mindset- and a sign of an unhealthy, non-critical thinking, more unreasonable population.
'Stop calling it a “free speech app”. Historically Parler is harsher on dissenting political views than any of their competitors. Just, ya know, against the “other side”.' - https://www.reddit.com/r/technews/comments/kts86k/comment/gi...
There's so much learned helplessness, victim mindset- and a sign of an unhealthy, non-critical thinking, more unreasonable population.
Even if Trump voters all supported the riots - the majority don't - they aren't going to buy a new mobile phone just so as to install Parler on it.
It's not an option, because of the banking, which is a gray area. It's privately owned, but it's not really a free market either. The problem is that Visa and Mastercard is blacklisting people, just because the angry mob complained on the internet. The social media is just a tip of the iceberg.
There's an entire ecosystem of decentralized money that has been invented and has been growing for the last 13 years to combat precisely this problem. The value of the units of those currencies are exploding right now, in part for this reason.
If this seems to you to be one of the deepest root causes of the problem, that people can't compete due to centralized monetary control systems, and you want to help make the world better by uprooting that critical power, you may consider digging deeper into these projects.
If this seems to you to be one of the deepest root causes of the problem, that people can't compete due to centralized monetary control systems, and you want to help make the world better by uprooting that critical power, you may consider digging deeper into these projects.
So to be clear - you want to allow people who are openly calling for violence to be able to transfer money freely via Bitcoin et al? This question usually gets ignored, avoided, because pro-Bitcoiners don't want to be accountable to the consequences of such system - likewise with fiat currencies and the current system you can have mechanisms like the Magnitsky Act to try to dissuade known bad actors via economic means before it reaches physical violence.
So to be more clear - you're okay with removing this layer of protection? And yes, it could be abused but then that's where actual work and getting in place an intelligent and accountable government with sound policy is the path, not taking down walls so to make it easier for bad actors to function within the system; not caring about it, concerning yourself with it, and externalizing the cost of the purposeful ignorance is a very bad idea.
"Bitcoin is almost as bs as fiat money" - Elon Musk, I look forward to Elon eventually voicing his full thoughts on this and not just his summization; he of course has to be careful due to the growing "army of HODLers" who are all financially aligned, all financially incentivized to promote Bitcoin et al to increase their value in the decentralized, global Ponzi-Pyramid. There are issues in the system, they can be course corrected by educating people on the right policies, Bitcoin et al is certainly the impetus for this to occur.
So to be more clear - you're okay with removing this layer of protection? And yes, it could be abused but then that's where actual work and getting in place an intelligent and accountable government with sound policy is the path, not taking down walls so to make it easier for bad actors to function within the system; not caring about it, concerning yourself with it, and externalizing the cost of the purposeful ignorance is a very bad idea.
"Bitcoin is almost as bs as fiat money" - Elon Musk, I look forward to Elon eventually voicing his full thoughts on this and not just his summization; he of course has to be careful due to the growing "army of HODLers" who are all financially aligned, all financially incentivized to promote Bitcoin et al to increase their value in the decentralized, global Ponzi-Pyramid. There are issues in the system, they can be course corrected by educating people on the right policies, Bitcoin et al is certainly the impetus for this to occur.
Yes, I very much do. And I want it to be recorded right out in public, on a bright, shiny public blockchain where everybody can see it, recognize them for the violent crazies they are, and dissociate from them.
If you are EXTREMELY knowledgeable and careful, you can transact with Bitcoin anonymously.
Less than 0.01% of the people who make a bunch of noise on Twitter or who stormed the Capitol are going to know how to be able to figure it out correctly.
If you are EXTREMELY knowledgeable and careful, you can transact with Bitcoin anonymously.
Less than 0.01% of the people who make a bunch of noise on Twitter or who stormed the Capitol are going to know how to be able to figure it out correctly.
Do you appreciate the vulnerability of the other stance? As in, do you know how absurdly lucky it is that people with a controlling stake in these payment processing companies happen to agree with you and aren't in Trump's pocket?
Imagine it were the other way around, and suddenly Twitter and Facebook just couldn't use banks anymore, or cards.
Centralized control of money is too dangerous for everyone. Whatever power exists could someday be wielded against you.
Why do you think the rioters are so afraid and angry? They were fine with Trump's making up executive powers that don't actually exist anywhere. Now they're seeing the other edge of the sword, and they're so afraid they're losing their minds.
Learn from them. Don't become like them when your view falls out of favor. Don't create a power so great your life would be ruined if your enemy came to wield it.
Imagine it were the other way around, and suddenly Twitter and Facebook just couldn't use banks anymore, or cards.
Centralized control of money is too dangerous for everyone. Whatever power exists could someday be wielded against you.
Why do you think the rioters are so afraid and angry? They were fine with Trump's making up executive powers that don't actually exist anywhere. Now they're seeing the other edge of the sword, and they're so afraid they're losing their minds.
Learn from them. Don't become like them when your view falls out of favor. Don't create a power so great your life would be ruined if your enemy came to wield it.
Indeed there are different layers and social media is just the tip, and that's a feature - and it's great because it's multiple barriers to entry; you don't want an angry mob who seeks violence to have fluidity.
Also, cash exists as a payment option - yes, it's slower than digital transactions which is also a feature to limit and slow allocation and in this case, slow the allocation to people wanting to allow open calls for violence. With enough support they could also create their own credit card company, if they can find a government who will be supportive of open calls to violence.
Also, cash exists as a payment option - yes, it's slower than digital transactions which is also a feature to limit and slow allocation and in this case, slow the allocation to people wanting to allow open calls for violence. With enough support they could also create their own credit card company, if they can find a government who will be supportive of open calls to violence.
That's my point, the government. Banking is not a free market. So can we put this nonsense
to sleep already? And since you don't seem to be too interested in the free market
argument anyway, let me respond to the rest of your comment, including the other one.
I don't know if you're aware of it, but your falling empire, the almighty America, is not the only country in the world. The censorship tactics that are deployed right now on the half of the population of the country that famously has the most free speech in the world, will be used against the people in other countries too. The willingness of the corporations to work with authoritarian governments, the obvious example being China, is not exactly a secret. These people hold no moral convictions, they use slave labor for God's sake, just so you can mindlessly consume more useless crap like a new iPhone every year or God knows how many pairs of Nike shoes, as they pander to you with rainbow flags and raised fists.
People who are in the front lines against such governments, some of whom you might show "support" to regularly on your favourite social media website, are also being persecuted for the same reasons - calls for violence and terrorism. The people from my country were hailed as heroes after the WWII by the Western world. But today, in some places in the world, people who are doing the same thing and fighting for the same causes that we did are labeled as terrorists. People might belive one thing today and the complete opposite tomorrow. Which is whatever suits the people at the media industry and their employers at the time.
And the bottomline is that you yourself might find yourself on the receiving end of the things you think are so great in the near future. The following weeks are not about the left vs the right. Or antiterrorism vs terrorism. Or morality vs lack thereof. Or however you want to frame it to feel good about yourself. It's about escalation or de-escalation. The right completely lost and the left had the upperhand. But for some reason, either stupidity or on purpose, they've chose to go about it in the worst possible way. Get petty, overblow the Capitol shitshow and seek revenge on the right. You might not even agree with that framing, but this is how the right perceives it. And that means escalation. Nothing might happen because of it or everything might happen. But the point is that you've turned the victory of the left into an uncertain future, that no one knows what holds.
Sorry for getting carried away, I know this is not a place for my bullshit, but this is basically the only place where I can voice my meaningless opinions that no one cares about.
I don't know if you're aware of it, but your falling empire, the almighty America, is not the only country in the world. The censorship tactics that are deployed right now on the half of the population of the country that famously has the most free speech in the world, will be used against the people in other countries too. The willingness of the corporations to work with authoritarian governments, the obvious example being China, is not exactly a secret. These people hold no moral convictions, they use slave labor for God's sake, just so you can mindlessly consume more useless crap like a new iPhone every year or God knows how many pairs of Nike shoes, as they pander to you with rainbow flags and raised fists.
People who are in the front lines against such governments, some of whom you might show "support" to regularly on your favourite social media website, are also being persecuted for the same reasons - calls for violence and terrorism. The people from my country were hailed as heroes after the WWII by the Western world. But today, in some places in the world, people who are doing the same thing and fighting for the same causes that we did are labeled as terrorists. People might belive one thing today and the complete opposite tomorrow. Which is whatever suits the people at the media industry and their employers at the time.
And the bottomline is that you yourself might find yourself on the receiving end of the things you think are so great in the near future. The following weeks are not about the left vs the right. Or antiterrorism vs terrorism. Or morality vs lack thereof. Or however you want to frame it to feel good about yourself. It's about escalation or de-escalation. The right completely lost and the left had the upperhand. But for some reason, either stupidity or on purpose, they've chose to go about it in the worst possible way. Get petty, overblow the Capitol shitshow and seek revenge on the right. You might not even agree with that framing, but this is how the right perceives it. And that means escalation. Nothing might happen because of it or everything might happen. But the point is that you've turned the victory of the left into an uncertain future, that no one knows what holds.
Sorry for getting carried away, I know this is not a place for my bullshit, but this is basically the only place where I can voice my meaningless opinions that no one cares about.
"... your falling empire, the almighty America" - I live in Canada, so technically part of America the continent, however I feel your skepticism or doubt relating to the current state of the US is a lack of understanding of the evolution process - even to the universal mechanism of yin-yang balance and cycle: yin is the state of stagnancy or being stagnant or slow moving, whereas yang is action and movement. The US has in fact been in a yin state due to regulatory capture of bad actors taking over and controlling systems, extracting value, for their own selfish reasons - and leaving less, distributing less for others. Policy wise the different complexes that have reenforced to allow this are easy to shift.
The ability for private companies to deplatform who they want is a feature, it's a failsafe against authoritarianism and tyranny - and it's not black and white, all or nothing - it's a spectrum or gradient, and it can be evolved with good core policies like those that will break apart the duopoly and reduce the power of amalgamated mainstream media; I hope you're aware of Andrew Yang and his core policy proposals which will do just that.
I'm mentally too tired to reply thoroughly to the rest of what you say, however you're right in that there is a beast on both sides of the duopoly that's integrated with mainstream media who will sensationalize - and stir up both sides however much they can for the sake of views and revenue. So I don't agree with your premise that either side had actual control of what narrative was presented, which is a problem in of itself - and one pro of social media is people like Yang who can share what they've learned and interact with others online without the gatekeeping of TV channels and newspapers, a relatively direct connection to people interest in tuning into your individual channel; 3 days ago he also stated: "For Cable News we should revive the Fairness Doctrine which the FCC had on the books until 1985 that required that you show both sides of a political issue. It was repealed by Reagan. If there was ever a time to bring it back it’s now." - the thread is here where he discusses this: https://twitter.com/JanPerry/status/1347211706162769921 - he begins by saying "There are 3 problems with our media that are fueling polarization: ..."
This is a perfectly fine place for your "bullshit" - you didn't name call, so you're all good in my books.
The ability for private companies to deplatform who they want is a feature, it's a failsafe against authoritarianism and tyranny - and it's not black and white, all or nothing - it's a spectrum or gradient, and it can be evolved with good core policies like those that will break apart the duopoly and reduce the power of amalgamated mainstream media; I hope you're aware of Andrew Yang and his core policy proposals which will do just that.
I'm mentally too tired to reply thoroughly to the rest of what you say, however you're right in that there is a beast on both sides of the duopoly that's integrated with mainstream media who will sensationalize - and stir up both sides however much they can for the sake of views and revenue. So I don't agree with your premise that either side had actual control of what narrative was presented, which is a problem in of itself - and one pro of social media is people like Yang who can share what they've learned and interact with others online without the gatekeeping of TV channels and newspapers, a relatively direct connection to people interest in tuning into your individual channel; 3 days ago he also stated: "For Cable News we should revive the Fairness Doctrine which the FCC had on the books until 1985 that required that you show both sides of a political issue. It was repealed by Reagan. If there was ever a time to bring it back it’s now." - the thread is here where he discusses this: https://twitter.com/JanPerry/status/1347211706162769921 - he begins by saying "There are 3 problems with our media that are fueling polarization: ..."
This is a perfectly fine place for your "bullshit" - you didn't name call, so you're all good in my books.
Is the yin-yang metaphor an intentional pun to Andrew Yang? That's clever, I like it. I'm not sure if I buy this esoteric explanation though. Right now we're back to neoliberalism and neoconservatism, assuming the sky won't fall on our heads tomorrow, so I don't see how that's any better. People got really emotional and their emotions will be once again used to grab even more power and push further policies that benefits everyone, except the people.
> The ability for private companies to deplatform who they want is a feature, it's a failsafe against authoritarianism and tyranny - and it's not black and white, all or nothing - it's a spectrum or gradient, and it can be evolved with good core policies like those that will break apart the duopoly and reduce the power of amalgamated mainstream media
If you'd listen to the right-libertarians, the conclusion they've reached is that if we would take capitalism without the government to it's full extent, it would be a very authoritarian system. They correctly predicted this tactics of deplatforming from every angle that we can see today, as a way of getting rid of undesirable people who would try to bring back the government. Ironically enough, they were wrong only in that it targeted them first, not the communists. I guess the second part addresses this, and what can I say to that, I wish I could be that optimistic.
> So I don't agree with your premise that either side had actual control of what narrative was presented, which is a problem in of itself
Sorry, I wasn't clear at all in what I meant. By "the left" and "the right" I generally meant that the people in power on the left went after Trump supporters. It's showing my own biases there I guess in portraying it as the "elites vs people", but to my defense, I'd say it was at least accurately on topic of this thread. And surely there are already more than enough people to go after the right-wingers in power, so I'm sure it's fine. But I agree with you, Reps and right-leaning media are lying to their base just as much as Dems and left-leaning media are lying to their base, if that's what you're saying.
> The ability for private companies to deplatform who they want is a feature, it's a failsafe against authoritarianism and tyranny - and it's not black and white, all or nothing - it's a spectrum or gradient, and it can be evolved with good core policies like those that will break apart the duopoly and reduce the power of amalgamated mainstream media
If you'd listen to the right-libertarians, the conclusion they've reached is that if we would take capitalism without the government to it's full extent, it would be a very authoritarian system. They correctly predicted this tactics of deplatforming from every angle that we can see today, as a way of getting rid of undesirable people who would try to bring back the government. Ironically enough, they were wrong only in that it targeted them first, not the communists. I guess the second part addresses this, and what can I say to that, I wish I could be that optimistic.
> So I don't agree with your premise that either side had actual control of what narrative was presented, which is a problem in of itself
Sorry, I wasn't clear at all in what I meant. By "the left" and "the right" I generally meant that the people in power on the left went after Trump supporters. It's showing my own biases there I guess in portraying it as the "elites vs people", but to my defense, I'd say it was at least accurately on topic of this thread. And surely there are already more than enough people to go after the right-wingers in power, so I'm sure it's fine. But I agree with you, Reps and right-leaning media are lying to their base just as much as Dems and left-leaning media are lying to their base, if that's what you're saying.
Hehe, yin-yang just happens to play well - whether coincidence, serendipity, or faith perhaps Andrew has Yang as a last name, as his policies will certainly lead to removing friction from the system while fuelling democracy, journalism, and people's lives to have UBI $ to spend - which will immediately increase the economy by ~12% - which will lead to further innovation; and the buying power of "$1,000"/month will increase exponentially as we automat more and more things.
Biden won, that's reason enough to reignite your optimism - even if it's just a little flame. Then stimulus-survival cheques will go to many that desperately need it. Then everyone will get vaccinated for COVID and things can begin to open up again. Yang is running for NYC Mayor - though not officially announced - he's registered to run + there's a video of him doing a Mayoral run announcement video. Yang, then if it makes sense, will run again in 2024 - "instead of that single $2,000 stimulus cheque - how much would it have helped if you got $1,000 every month?" Etc.
"Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions." - Yup, though how much is perpetuated purposefully by Democrats vs. the narratives that mainstream media (or whoever else has influence on what they say) is unknown - but it happens. It's why social media is good because it allows people like Andrew Yang to have a voice - someone very articulate, very understanding of the problems, and has figured out the solutions which he's able to clearly explain. We need many more Andrew Yangs.
Biden won, that's reason enough to reignite your optimism - even if it's just a little flame. Then stimulus-survival cheques will go to many that desperately need it. Then everyone will get vaccinated for COVID and things can begin to open up again. Yang is running for NYC Mayor - though not officially announced - he's registered to run + there's a video of him doing a Mayoral run announcement video. Yang, then if it makes sense, will run again in 2024 - "instead of that single $2,000 stimulus cheque - how much would it have helped if you got $1,000 every month?" Etc.
"Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions." - Yup, though how much is perpetuated purposefully by Democrats vs. the narratives that mainstream media (or whoever else has influence on what they say) is unknown - but it happens. It's why social media is good because it allows people like Andrew Yang to have a voice - someone very articulate, very understanding of the problems, and has figured out the solutions which he's able to clearly explain. We need many more Andrew Yangs.
> Otherwise we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control.
Yes, but that’s already true without this action, which doesn’t make them any more or less democratically controlled. A more democratic way of deciding clear limits on free speech would be great, but the absence of one doesn’t mean the platforms should sit on their hands and do nothing while the world burns.
Yes, but that’s already true without this action, which doesn’t make them any more or less democratically controlled. A more democratic way of deciding clear limits on free speech would be great, but the absence of one doesn’t mean the platforms should sit on their hands and do nothing while the world burns.
This is where it gets interesting - are you suggesting private companies shouldn’t be allowed to set terms of service(s)?
Would it be acceptable for the state to pass laws that severely limits private entities to do so?
There’s lot to think about here. Free speech is good and all, but is it not really about free speech in relation to the state? i.e you’ll not be thrown in jail or persecuted for saying things.
Btw, if you follow policy just a bit bellow the surface you’ll soon find that “we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control” since ways back.
Would it be acceptable for the state to pass laws that severely limits private entities to do so?
There’s lot to think about here. Free speech is good and all, but is it not really about free speech in relation to the state? i.e you’ll not be thrown in jail or persecuted for saying things.
Btw, if you follow policy just a bit bellow the surface you’ll soon find that “we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control” since ways back.
Landlords and employers are already very restricted in what can be in their terms, so there is certainly precedent for it.
Yes, there are many laws dictating various businesses.
This is why it is interesting - it’s a question about regulation. State and law “interfering” with private company interests.
I like regulations on big companies in general, but this one would end up with weird effects, I reckon.
This is why it is interesting - it’s a question about regulation. State and law “interfering” with private company interests.
I like regulations on big companies in general, but this one would end up with weird effects, I reckon.
This is a straw man argument. We’re not discussing whether a private company should be allowed to have a TOS or control their TOS. We are discussing if a privately owned public communication platform used by the majority of a population should be able to control speech. Also at stake is if a large corporation should be able to have TOS that are anti competitive. (I.E. have TOS that in effect stifle competition)
The president could for example call to a press conference.
The internet is still rather open - parler could start a web site or give out a magazine.
The possible venues of free speech are numerous.
The internet is still rather open - parler could start a web site or give out a magazine.
The possible venues of free speech are numerous.
What?
They're just deciding they don't want to host their content on their servers. Which makes sense because some of their content is illegal. Amazon wouldn't host a message board for pedos eithers.
They're just deciding they don't want to host their content on their servers. Which makes sense because some of their content is illegal. Amazon wouldn't host a message board for pedos eithers.
They are not. They are decided what is published on their platform and what not. Who can publish on their platform and who not. All limited to their respective platform.
The term "allowed" in its generality can only refer to legal action, and that is reserved to the state. And I am sure there will be plenty of legal aftermath to the recent events too.
Having said that, it is indeed disturbing how large the actual power of those big companies is. As a society, we have to consider how this should be handled going forward.
Having said that, it is indeed disturbing how large the actual power of those big companies is. As a society, we have to consider how this should be handled going forward.
Private companies have always done this. If you keep picking fights in a bar, you will be thrown out and banned. (In most places, anyway.)
If you keep plotting insurrection, violent murder, and the overthrow of democracy, you will also be banned. As you should be. Because if you aren't banned, any form of support - whether it's delivering pizza or web services - has the potential to make you an accessory.
Most TOS are pretty clear about the "no criminal acts" part. The baffling thing isn't why those rules exist, it's why right wing extremists particularly seem to believe the rules shouldn't apply to them.
If you keep plotting insurrection, violent murder, and the overthrow of democracy, you will also be banned. As you should be. Because if you aren't banned, any form of support - whether it's delivering pizza or web services - has the potential to make you an accessory.
Most TOS are pretty clear about the "no criminal acts" part. The baffling thing isn't why those rules exist, it's why right wing extremists particularly seem to believe the rules shouldn't apply to them.
> The problem here is that private companies are doing something that only democratically legitimized state authorities should be doing, deciding what is allowed or not allowed.
So that I understand: on what grounds are such companies deciding what's allowed or not allowed for all people? As best as I can tell, they're deciding what's allowed or not allowed on their own platforms.
And a point I've made elsewhere but I'll repeat here: Parler might've exposed itself to FOSTA/SESTA by insisting on not moderating, and as such, while AAPL/AMZN/GOOG deplatformed Parler with violence as cause, it's also somewhat likely that gaining awareness of the lack of FOSTA/SESTA compliance may have forced their hand. (I'll invite an attorney to keep me honest here - I'm not one.)
I keep pointing this out because, of course, FOSTA/SESTA were passed in the last few years.
So that I understand: on what grounds are such companies deciding what's allowed or not allowed for all people? As best as I can tell, they're deciding what's allowed or not allowed on their own platforms.
And a point I've made elsewhere but I'll repeat here: Parler might've exposed itself to FOSTA/SESTA by insisting on not moderating, and as such, while AAPL/AMZN/GOOG deplatformed Parler with violence as cause, it's also somewhat likely that gaining awareness of the lack of FOSTA/SESTA compliance may have forced their hand. (I'll invite an attorney to keep me honest here - I'm not one.)
I keep pointing this out because, of course, FOSTA/SESTA were passed in the last few years.
A private company is not a government. They should be allowed to make any lawful decision you or I disagree with.
By definition, a company is allowed to make a decision iff it is lawful.
actually, according to rand paul, they are doing what private companies should be doing and not what democratically legitimized state authorities should be doing.
As I understand him, private companies should decide for themselves who they serve and if we think they are behaving immorally, convince our circle not to give them business. It's not the government's job to say who they can and cannot serve.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-...
As I understand him, private companies should decide for themselves who they serve and if we think they are behaving immorally, convince our circle not to give them business. It's not the government's job to say who they can and cannot serve.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-...
PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.
INTERVIEWER: But?
PAUL: You had to ask me the "but." I don't like the idea of telling private business owners — I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.
INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworth’s?
PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part — and this is the hard part about believing in freedom — is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example — you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we're here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I'm sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things.It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don't belong to those groups, or don't associate with those people.It's worth remembering that this principle was upheld by the Supreme Court a little over two years ago, in the case of a baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court...
In this case, it was decided that the baker has a right to refuse service if they have a moral objection to the service they're being asked to provide. The same principle applies to Amazon, though one can certainly see how the scale and scope of Amazon's services and their centrality to the online economy makes things a bit more complicated.
In this case, it was decided that the baker has a right to refuse service if they have a moral objection to the service they're being asked to provide. The same principle applies to Amazon, though one can certainly see how the scale and scope of Amazon's services and their centrality to the online economy makes things a bit more complicated.
If the companies do not do it themselves, the state will eventually start doing it. If they go too far, the state will eventually ban them from doing that.
Just the system working as intended I think?
Just the system working as intended I think?
Governments usually move slow and sometimes (most of the time) they can't react in time and they are after-the-fact legislations. It's NOT OK for companies to sit back and not attempt to stop that behavior. By doing nothing but continuing to do business with them they are essentially approving that behavior. Here's a tweet[1] with some screenshots of some of the type of conversations that are happening on Parler.
[1] https://twitter.com/BethLynch2020/status/1347987417052172306...
[1] https://twitter.com/BethLynch2020/status/1347987417052172306...
Communities have ostracized the fringe since the dawn of time. Further, I would argue that we specifically don’t want governments to be the arbiters of speech.
Publishers have always had discretion over what they publish or distribute. That has not changed.
> The problem here is that private companies are doing something that only democratically legitimized state authorities should be doing
Companies are obligated to make the most possible money for their shareholders. Otherwise their shareholders withdraw investments and invest elsewhere. Deplatforming is a legal money making strategy (it might succeed or it might fail but the goal is to make money). To add more data, in Nov 2020 7 MM more “potential customers” voted for Biden compared to Trump. Additionally, the “potential customers” that voted for Biden were predominantly younger i.e. more time to purchase good and services from company X. It seems clear to me deplatforming is a medium-term and long-term financial numbers game.
> Otherwise we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control.
The way I see this is:
Historically we thought free market economics only applied to the monetary aspect of socio-economics. “deplatforming”/“cancel culture” seems to be the free market “solution” to social issues. It is basically the “popular vote” weighted by capital, forcing social change by ostracism/“excommunication” (specifically limiting their ability to scale their speech, without excommunicating them from society - “soft excommunication”?).
Historically social issues were dictated by the church through “hard excommunication” fast and effective, but not fair to minorities. Since then we’ve tried to use a version of “one person one vote” and required government regulation, and moved very slow (for many reasons, one of them being a disproportionate voting power to low population states). Perhaps we are now witnessing the efficiency of the free market to solve social issues?
Which is an interesting/ironic result, given historic Republican policy about free markets.
P.S. FWIW, I’d be happy with more regulation in this area, even though the free market “solution” is in my favor. I hope we can soon live in a world that uses “one person one vote” for all societal decisions, that strategy seems most fair to me. However, whatever your politics might be, please understand: A true “one person one vote” does also mean that both the Senate and the Electoral College need to be rectified.
Companies are obligated to make the most possible money for their shareholders. Otherwise their shareholders withdraw investments and invest elsewhere. Deplatforming is a legal money making strategy (it might succeed or it might fail but the goal is to make money). To add more data, in Nov 2020 7 MM more “potential customers” voted for Biden compared to Trump. Additionally, the “potential customers” that voted for Biden were predominantly younger i.e. more time to purchase good and services from company X. It seems clear to me deplatforming is a medium-term and long-term financial numbers game.
> Otherwise we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control.
The way I see this is:
Historically we thought free market economics only applied to the monetary aspect of socio-economics. “deplatforming”/“cancel culture” seems to be the free market “solution” to social issues. It is basically the “popular vote” weighted by capital, forcing social change by ostracism/“excommunication” (specifically limiting their ability to scale their speech, without excommunicating them from society - “soft excommunication”?).
Historically social issues were dictated by the church through “hard excommunication” fast and effective, but not fair to minorities. Since then we’ve tried to use a version of “one person one vote” and required government regulation, and moved very slow (for many reasons, one of them being a disproportionate voting power to low population states). Perhaps we are now witnessing the efficiency of the free market to solve social issues?
Which is an interesting/ironic result, given historic Republican policy about free markets.
P.S. FWIW, I’d be happy with more regulation in this area, even though the free market “solution” is in my favor. I hope we can soon live in a world that uses “one person one vote” for all societal decisions, that strategy seems most fair to me. However, whatever your politics might be, please understand: A true “one person one vote” does also mean that both the Senate and the Electoral College need to be rectified.
>My line for free speech seems to lie in speech that incites violence or speech that discriminates against people for immutable characteristics of their person, both of which I know Parler harbors in abundance.
How do you feel about #killallmen on Twitter?
How do you feel about #killallmen on Twitter?
Twitter is already very judicious when it comes to any use of the word 'kill' nowadays=s, or anything that could be violent. Just requires a report.
A quick search on twitter shows that not to be true.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at what you said. "Just requires a report".
Okay here is a challenge for you. I'll give you links from 2016 - 2019. Try getting them removed. I have been reporting them for months now and Twitter hasn't acted. Twitter sucks at this. It only removes Right Wing content. But maybe Twitter will be willing to take your report seriously instead of mine. So here is the list:
2016 post: https://twitter.com/lil_cmb/status/765737247781949444?s=19
2018 post: https://twitter.com/DutchessOfDork/status/100553860903276953...
2018 post: https://twitter.com/MadamePete/status/1017462143279681541?s=...
2019 post: https://twitter.com/jcmithnoy/status/1085855272793366529?s=1...
The ex-PM of Malaysia literally tweeted that Muslims have a right to kill millions of French people for massacres of the past. On Twitter. I am sure nothing of what Trump tweeted matches this racist hate. Yet Trump was banned while the ex-PM of Malaysia deleted his tweet by himself without any repercussions from Twitter. Read more about it here: https://twitter.com/AskAnshul/status/1347803217405509632
When it comes to Social Media I have a huge list of things that these companies have done wrong. And it just keeps growing. So when you say "Just requires a report" I feel like laughing at your innocence. I have a list of Instagram accounts that spew anti-Hindu content daily. Have reported them multiple times already. Facebook doesn't remove them. I don't even want to link to them because it is that bad!
Okay here is a challenge for you. I'll give you links from 2016 - 2019. Try getting them removed. I have been reporting them for months now and Twitter hasn't acted. Twitter sucks at this. It only removes Right Wing content. But maybe Twitter will be willing to take your report seriously instead of mine. So here is the list:
2016 post: https://twitter.com/lil_cmb/status/765737247781949444?s=19
2018 post: https://twitter.com/DutchessOfDork/status/100553860903276953...
2018 post: https://twitter.com/MadamePete/status/1017462143279681541?s=...
2019 post: https://twitter.com/jcmithnoy/status/1085855272793366529?s=1...
The ex-PM of Malaysia literally tweeted that Muslims have a right to kill millions of French people for massacres of the past. On Twitter. I am sure nothing of what Trump tweeted matches this racist hate. Yet Trump was banned while the ex-PM of Malaysia deleted his tweet by himself without any repercussions from Twitter. Read more about it here: https://twitter.com/AskAnshul/status/1347803217405509632
When it comes to Social Media I have a huge list of things that these companies have done wrong. And it just keeps growing. So when you say "Just requires a report" I feel like laughing at your innocence. I have a list of Instagram accounts that spew anti-Hindu content daily. Have reported them multiple times already. Facebook doesn't remove them. I don't even want to link to them because it is that bad!
> Twitter sucks at this. It only removes Right Wing content.
https://twitter.com/cecilyy15/status/410145078670536704?s=20
https://twitter.com/cjevans64/status/333093612520865792?s=20
https://twitter.com/dlwest4/status/387428416753917952?s=20
https://twitter.com/_dresslr/status/455476238334033920?s=20
There are literally pages more.
What you mean is Twitter doesn't prioritize your singular reports on low engagement tweets from years ago.
If they had more engagement they could have more reports.
But keep martyring yourself, it results in amusing justifications like thinking there wouldn't be racist people who had clamored for the assassination of the first black president of the United States :)
-
Also your bringing up that PM is a great example too!
Twitter has bent over backwards for politically influential individuals. Twitter was under the impression nothing Trump could do would get his account banned while president, they even said as much!
It took 5 deaths at the Capitol during an attempted attack on Congress as a direct result of his actions for them throw in the towel.
I mean the man threatened nuclear war over Twitter and Twitter didn't bat an eyelid. Compared to that a poorly worded comment about genocide seems about par?
https://twitter.com/cecilyy15/status/410145078670536704?s=20
https://twitter.com/cjevans64/status/333093612520865792?s=20
https://twitter.com/dlwest4/status/387428416753917952?s=20
https://twitter.com/_dresslr/status/455476238334033920?s=20
There are literally pages more.
What you mean is Twitter doesn't prioritize your singular reports on low engagement tweets from years ago.
If they had more engagement they could have more reports.
But keep martyring yourself, it results in amusing justifications like thinking there wouldn't be racist people who had clamored for the assassination of the first black president of the United States :)
-
Also your bringing up that PM is a great example too!
Twitter has bent over backwards for politically influential individuals. Twitter was under the impression nothing Trump could do would get his account banned while president, they even said as much!
It took 5 deaths at the Capitol during an attempted attack on Congress as a direct result of his actions for them throw in the towel.
I mean the man threatened nuclear war over Twitter and Twitter didn't bat an eyelid. Compared to that a poorly worded comment about genocide seems about par?
> What you mean is Twitter doesn't prioritize reports on low engagement tweets.
It is funny you can find these low engagement tweets not a big deal while the threat report that Amazon sent to Parler literally contained a low engagement post too. It wasn't a verified handle that posted that violence induced post. Yet Parler was kicked off of Amazon while you are here providing justifications for Twitter. How does that make you feel?
These are the low engagement Parler posts. Can you extend the same justification you gave for Twitter to Parler too?
1. https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2021-01/10/4...
2. https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2021-01/10/1...
3. https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2021-01/10/1...
It is funny you can find these low engagement tweets not a big deal while the threat report that Amazon sent to Parler literally contained a low engagement post too. It wasn't a verified handle that posted that violence induced post. Yet Parler was kicked off of Amazon while you are here providing justifications for Twitter. How does that make you feel?
These are the low engagement Parler posts. Can you extend the same justification you gave for Twitter to Parler too?
1. https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2021-01/10/4...
2. https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2021-01/10/1...
3. https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2021-01/10/1...
Wait you're telling me that platform with *330 Million* monthly active users has more problems moderating low engagement content than the platform with 4 million MAUs?
Say it ain't so!
-
And also what are you even trying to say, that the reason why Parler was banned was those images?
Haha, no. It was because of the ratio of that kind of content to all the content.
Turns out if your only differentiator is you allow X that your competitor doesn't allow, you get a ton of X.
Whether it's porn, hate speech, illegal products, you name it.
You're inviting yourself to become a haven for X.
-
Also please confirm: You said Twitter only removes Right Wing content"
Do you stand by such a statement? Because further discourse with you from me will rely on speaking within the realm of reality.
-
Reply to both comments since now I'm rate limited:
Two comments back to back showing a tendency to read things in the most convenient way...
Those images, literally just those images, are not why Parler was banned. Your argument literally relies on the fact!
Otherwise those images exist for Twitter and they'd be kicked off!
It was those images PLUS context, and you argue the context is they're right leaning, and I argue the context is they refused to censor hate speech and ended up being a haven for it
-
I literally gave you the reason right there! You allow X, other place doesn't, you'll be swamped with X.
Call it game theory, call it human nature, call it whatever you want, that's how it's worked on the internet since time immemorial, I don't get why Parler was supposed different
Say it ain't so!
-
And also what are you even trying to say, that the reason why Parler was banned was those images?
Haha, no. It was because of the ratio of that kind of content to all the content.
Turns out if your only differentiator is you allow X that your competitor doesn't allow, you get a ton of X.
Whether it's porn, hate speech, illegal products, you name it.
You're inviting yourself to become a haven for X.
-
Also please confirm: You said Twitter only removes Right Wing content"
Do you stand by such a statement? Because further discourse with you from me will rely on speaking within the realm of reality.
-
Reply to both comments since now I'm rate limited:
Two comments back to back showing a tendency to read things in the most convenient way...
Those images, literally just those images, are not why Parler was banned. Your argument literally relies on the fact!
Otherwise those images exist for Twitter and they'd be kicked off!
It was those images PLUS context, and you argue the context is they're right leaning, and I argue the context is they refused to censor hate speech and ended up being a haven for it
-
I literally gave you the reason right there! You allow X, other place doesn't, you'll be swamped with X.
Call it game theory, call it human nature, call it whatever you want, that's how it's worked on the internet since time immemorial, I don't get why Parler was supposed different
> And also what are you even trying to say, that the reason why Parler was banned was those images?
And now that I have shown you that Amazon did use those low engagement Parler posts as reason to boot Parler (their email mentions "98 examples"), will it use the same yardstick to boot Twitter out of AWS for the thousands of low engagement violent tweets that is littered across Twitter? If you have a convincing answer for it I'll be glad to engage with you further. I say so because Twitter is hosted on AWS (https://www.techradar.com/in/news/twitter-signs-up-aws-for-i...)
If Amazon cannot kick Twitter out then I say that Big Tech is hypocritical and ideologically biased. Or that Twitter is a big paying customer and Amazon wouldn't want to mess with the relationship it has with Twitter. You pick what is the excuse going to be.
---
Replying to your posts as edits because of rate limits *shrugs*
> It was those images PLUS context, and you argue the context is they're right leaning, and I argue the context is they refused to censor hate speech and ended up being a haven for it
Censor hate speech in low engagement content? Isn't that the very reason you gave for why Twitter is not removing those hate speech filled posts? Because they are surprise, surprise low engagement posts.
So why bother? Why is Amazon going out of its way to remove Parler from AWS for low engagement posts? It is not like some high profile user with a large following asked for people to commit violence right? I am literally using your own justification for Parler too. Why is your justification for Twitter okay while not okay for Parler?
If Amazon had evidence of high engagement posts spreading violence in Parler it would have attached those images. Not images from low engagement posts. This just goes to show that Big Tech just doesn't want Parler in there. That is all there is to it. It is an ideological battle. Else the same filth you find in right wing Parler you find in Twitter, Facebook and the rest of social media. There is literally no difference between any of these social platforms.
And now that I have shown you that Amazon did use those low engagement Parler posts as reason to boot Parler (their email mentions "98 examples"), will it use the same yardstick to boot Twitter out of AWS for the thousands of low engagement violent tweets that is littered across Twitter? If you have a convincing answer for it I'll be glad to engage with you further. I say so because Twitter is hosted on AWS (https://www.techradar.com/in/news/twitter-signs-up-aws-for-i...)
If Amazon cannot kick Twitter out then I say that Big Tech is hypocritical and ideologically biased. Or that Twitter is a big paying customer and Amazon wouldn't want to mess with the relationship it has with Twitter. You pick what is the excuse going to be.
---
Replying to your posts as edits because of rate limits *shrugs*
> It was those images PLUS context, and you argue the context is they're right leaning, and I argue the context is they refused to censor hate speech and ended up being a haven for it
Censor hate speech in low engagement content? Isn't that the very reason you gave for why Twitter is not removing those hate speech filled posts? Because they are surprise, surprise low engagement posts.
So why bother? Why is Amazon going out of its way to remove Parler from AWS for low engagement posts? It is not like some high profile user with a large following asked for people to commit violence right? I am literally using your own justification for Parler too. Why is your justification for Twitter okay while not okay for Parler?
If Amazon had evidence of high engagement posts spreading violence in Parler it would have attached those images. Not images from low engagement posts. This just goes to show that Big Tech just doesn't want Parler in there. That is all there is to it. It is an ideological battle. Else the same filth you find in right wing Parler you find in Twitter, Facebook and the rest of social media. There is literally no difference between any of these social platforms.
> Censor hate speech in low engagement content? Isn't that the very reason you gave for why Twitter is not removing those hate speech filled posts? Because they are surprise, surprise low engagement posts.
Nope. You see you tacked on your own little part that changes the meaning in a HUGE way.
Parler eschewed censorship period.
You're slowly inching towards getting this
No matter how much engagement a post had, how much vitriol someone spewed, literally the first page is promising there is no deplatforming a user for their speech.
So when your differentiator is you don't censor at all, you become a lightning rod for things like hate speech!
-
I mean seriously this applies to ANYTHING: imagine a burger place called "WcDonalds"
We have an 1:1 equivalent to menu to McDonalds.
But we're lesser known, long term prospects are unknown.
Despite that we aim to be functionally equivalent to McDonalds with one small twist...
We allow drug use in our restaurants.
Let's say it's a state that decriminalized drugs, we allow you to toke up in line, as you eat, we're saying its your right.
-
Who do you think ends up going to our WcDonalds?
If someone claims WcDonalds locations are just full of drug users, are you going to go "you have no proof of that!!!!"? Isn't it common sense that's the outcome?
That's Parler and Twitter. The biggest draw to Parler is that you have free speech regardless of engagement, where Twitter is limited speech. Anything that doesn't fit in the Twitter limited speech, including hate speech and racism, is going to be attracted to Parler.
And in Twitter when you see it you can report it and there's a reason for it to be removed! Even if it fails for old low enagament posts!
But on Parler, by design, that content will not be removed. No matter how big it gets, how many reports it has, by design, the user won't be deplatformed.
-
Also seriously I want you to clarify if you actually think Twitter only deletes Right Wing comments, it's a pretty off the wall claim that harms the weight of any further discussion
Nope. You see you tacked on your own little part that changes the meaning in a HUGE way.
Parler eschewed censorship period.
You're slowly inching towards getting this
No matter how much engagement a post had, how much vitriol someone spewed, literally the first page is promising there is no deplatforming a user for their speech.
So when your differentiator is you don't censor at all, you become a lightning rod for things like hate speech!
-
I mean seriously this applies to ANYTHING: imagine a burger place called "WcDonalds"
We have an 1:1 equivalent to menu to McDonalds.
But we're lesser known, long term prospects are unknown.
Despite that we aim to be functionally equivalent to McDonalds with one small twist...
We allow drug use in our restaurants.
Let's say it's a state that decriminalized drugs, we allow you to toke up in line, as you eat, we're saying its your right.
-
Who do you think ends up going to our WcDonalds?
If someone claims WcDonalds locations are just full of drug users, are you going to go "you have no proof of that!!!!"? Isn't it common sense that's the outcome?
That's Parler and Twitter. The biggest draw to Parler is that you have free speech regardless of engagement, where Twitter is limited speech. Anything that doesn't fit in the Twitter limited speech, including hate speech and racism, is going to be attracted to Parler.
And in Twitter when you see it you can report it and there's a reason for it to be removed! Even if it fails for old low enagament posts!
But on Parler, by design, that content will not be removed. No matter how big it gets, how many reports it has, by design, the user won't be deplatformed.
-
Also seriously I want you to clarify if you actually think Twitter only deletes Right Wing comments, it's a pretty off the wall claim that harms the weight of any further discussion
I read your long winding post and it still is unable to address my points. You are just beating around the bush with all sorts of analogies.
It's funny to see how the left wing was crying over censorship in Parler now suddenly says that Parler was banned because it wasn't censoring anything. Isn't this what leftists were saying just a year back:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...
Here is another quote from Amazon's email which talks about Parler removing violent posts:
"You remove some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency."
This is Amazon crying about Parler removing violent posts but "not always with urgency". What the actual fuck? Why should Parler do anything with "urgency" just because Amazon asked for it? Is Amazon the US Government? I have been reporting accounts and tweets for months on Twitter and it hasn't yet been removed. But Amazon is greater than you, me and everyone else. If it asks something you better deliver immediately or else you'll be booted from their platform.
But they are doing nothing about the low engagement violent tweets on Twitter which is hosted on AWS infrastructure. I haven't seen a bigger bunch of hypocrites in my life!
Amazon doesn't realise it but it has given so much ammunition for Parler to sue in a court case. They literally have admitted in the email that Parler is removing violent posts but not with the same urgency that it wants. Well news flash: no social media platform in the World removes any post with urgency. I sometimes get notifications for reports I had submitted months ago with "Sorry we did not find it violating our policies and it cannot be taken down". On posts that are literally violent.
Unless you have used the garbage reporting system that these social media companies have in place and experienced it first hand you don't have any right to talk about Parler and its efficacy in removing illegal content.
It's funny to see how the left wing was crying over censorship in Parler now suddenly says that Parler was banned because it wasn't censoring anything. Isn't this what leftists were saying just a year back:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...
Here is another quote from Amazon's email which talks about Parler removing violent posts:
"You remove some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency."
This is Amazon crying about Parler removing violent posts but "not always with urgency". What the actual fuck? Why should Parler do anything with "urgency" just because Amazon asked for it? Is Amazon the US Government? I have been reporting accounts and tweets for months on Twitter and it hasn't yet been removed. But Amazon is greater than you, me and everyone else. If it asks something you better deliver immediately or else you'll be booted from their platform.
But they are doing nothing about the low engagement violent tweets on Twitter which is hosted on AWS infrastructure. I haven't seen a bigger bunch of hypocrites in my life!
Amazon doesn't realise it but it has given so much ammunition for Parler to sue in a court case. They literally have admitted in the email that Parler is removing violent posts but not with the same urgency that it wants. Well news flash: no social media platform in the World removes any post with urgency. I sometimes get notifications for reports I had submitted months ago with "Sorry we did not find it violating our policies and it cannot be taken down". On posts that are literally violent.
Unless you have used the garbage reporting system that these social media companies have in place and experienced it first hand you don't have any right to talk about Parler and its efficacy in removing illegal content.
Beating around what bush?! I've literally addressed, line by line, every single point you made.
The analogy is there to aid your understanding, but if you want to block your ears and go "lalalala left wingerr lalalalala" I guess it won't help right? I told you to stop ascribing your political leanings to me, nothing I've said is partisan. It's lazy attempts to distract from actual discourse.
-
You chose one point to explode which isn't even related to the topic at hand and still won't answer if you actually think "Twitter only removes Right Wing content" which is what started this whole thing!
And you just spent an entire comment complaining about Parler's removals... you want to be embarrassed real quick?
My points about Parler... come from Parler!
Here's their exact words:
> We prefer to leave decisions about what is seen and who is heard to each individual. _In no case will Parler decide what will content be removed or filtered, or whose account will be removed, on the basis of the opinion expressed within the content at issue._
You say
>you don't have any right to talk about Parler and its efficacy in removing illegal content
Another weasel! Hate speech is not illegal! At least not in the US!
My comment repeatedly says Parler allows hate speech yet amusingly you're trying to distract with all sorts of talk about Amazon when _the literal community guidelines_ are bragging that you won't be banned for any opinion... which includes hate speech!
Stop doing this. Stop trying to throw up a smoke screen by building up strawman after straw man.
I won't answer you anymore until you answer two questions:
1. Does Parler allow hate speech (with the reminder that it is not illegal in their jurisdiction)
2. Do you believe Twitter only deletes Right Wing content.
Answer thise questions, not with another unrelated question or diatribe which I'll easily dismantle. Just yes or no, or you'll have shown who's really beating around the bush
The analogy is there to aid your understanding, but if you want to block your ears and go "lalalala left wingerr lalalalala" I guess it won't help right? I told you to stop ascribing your political leanings to me, nothing I've said is partisan. It's lazy attempts to distract from actual discourse.
-
You chose one point to explode which isn't even related to the topic at hand and still won't answer if you actually think "Twitter only removes Right Wing content" which is what started this whole thing!
And you just spent an entire comment complaining about Parler's removals... you want to be embarrassed real quick?
My points about Parler... come from Parler!
Here's their exact words:
> We prefer to leave decisions about what is seen and who is heard to each individual. _In no case will Parler decide what will content be removed or filtered, or whose account will be removed, on the basis of the opinion expressed within the content at issue._
You say
>you don't have any right to talk about Parler and its efficacy in removing illegal content
Another weasel! Hate speech is not illegal! At least not in the US!
My comment repeatedly says Parler allows hate speech yet amusingly you're trying to distract with all sorts of talk about Amazon when _the literal community guidelines_ are bragging that you won't be banned for any opinion... which includes hate speech!
Stop doing this. Stop trying to throw up a smoke screen by building up strawman after straw man.
I won't answer you anymore until you answer two questions:
1. Does Parler allow hate speech (with the reminder that it is not illegal in their jurisdiction)
2. Do you believe Twitter only deletes Right Wing content.
Answer thise questions, not with another unrelated question or diatribe which I'll easily dismantle. Just yes or no, or you'll have shown who's really beating around the bush
Just wanted to chime in and say I thought your argument was reasonable. After you sent those counterexamples of conservative tweets that Twitter hadn’t deleted, I think the other commenter stopped engaging meaningfully. Sorry you had to suffer through this.
Your really want me to expose you don't you? How convenient of you to not link to the Parler Guidelines that you quote out of. What was the reason not to link? You thought I am a dummy who can't look up the Parler Guidelines and not see for myself and just accept your arguments at face value?
> Here's their exact words:
> We prefer to leave decisions about what is seen and who is heard to each individual. _In no case will Parler decide what will content be removed or filtered, or whose account will be removed, on the basis of the opinion expressed within the content at issue._
Right. And as usual you conveniently skipped the part that comes after this in the "Principles" section which is what any leftist liberal would do. This again busts your propaganda about Parler allowing violence, hate speech on their platform as being mentioned in their policy. Lie by selectively quoting guidelines. You can play this game all you want but it won't work in a Court of Law nor will it work with me. All Parler has to do now is sue Amazon for lying in their email that Parler doesn't have a policy on tackling hate speech.
> My comment repeatedly says Parler allows hate speech
Bullcrap. I'll disprove your nonsense by quoting straight out of the Parler Guidelines:
"Parler will not knowingly allow itself to be used as a tool for crime, civil torts, or other unlawful acts. We will remove reported member content that a reasonable and objective observer would believe constitutes or evidences such activity. We may also remove the accounts of members who use our platform in this way.
Sometimes the law properly requires us to exclude content from our platform once it is reported to us or to our Community Jury—content we would make it a priority to exclude anyway. Obvious examples include: child sexual abuse material, content posted by or on behalf of terrorist organizations, intellectual property theft.
However, even when the law may not require us to flag or remove reported content, or to ban a member, we will nonetheless do so when we deem it necessary to prevent our services from being used by someone in the commission of a crime or civil tort—particularly when these are likely to interfere with our mission of providing a welcoming, nonpartisan Public Square. Examples include criminal solicitation, fraud, and nuisance."
In case you did not know the meaning, "civil torts" encompasses hate speech and much much more.
LINK TO THE PARLER GUIDELINES (because you were scared to link it in the first place): https://legal.parler.com/documents/guidelines.pdf
----
> Stop doing this. Stop trying to throw up a smoke screen by building up strawman after straw man.
I am not. You are. You just embarrassed yourself by selectively quoting from the guidelines. Stop lying to just prove a point. By not linking to the Guidelines you made it amply clear what your intent is.
----
> I won't answer you anymore until you answer two questions:
You won't be able to answer after you read this comment anyways. I did not want to embarrass you but you are repeatedly asking for it so I'll gladly oblige.
----
> Answer thise questions, not with another unrelated question or diatribe which I'll easily dismantle.
You couldn't dismantle anything. On the contrary I dismantled your lie that Parler doesn't have a hate speech policy in place.
> Just yes or no, or you'll have shown who's really beating around the bush
> 1. Does Parler allow hate speech (with the reminder that it is not illegal in their jurisdiction)
NO. I just disproved it quoting straight from their guidelines. They even have guidelines on how to report illegal and hate content here: https://legal.parler.com/documents/Parler-Community-Jury.pdf
> 2. Do you believe Twitter only deletes Right Wing content.
YES. Left wingers are left untouched. The only time the left wing was up in arms against Twitter was when their bot/fake/pseudonym-based accounts were deleted and they trended #StopTheLeftPurge. No prominent left winger was banned. No account of any prominent left winger who called for assassination of Trump was banned. Most prominent left wingers were left alone with just a rap on their knuckle after they posted incendiary tweets (some of them were even anti-semetic). And those who posted anti-semetic tweets were Congressmen/women. Not some lunatic with zero followers and with low engagement tweets. If a prominent Right wing account had posted something similar they would have gotten an insta-ban. That ex-PM of Malaysia literally called for genocide of millions of French. Was his account banned? Nope. After that there have been multiple terror attacks in France. If Trump's speech can be linked to US Capitol violence then why can't the ex-PM of Malaysia's tweet be linked to the series of terror attacks that put France on the edge? See the dichotomy?
Do you have evidence of any prominent Left wing personality being banned from Twitter? I can give you examples of hundreds of prominent Right wing personalities purged from Twitter. Name one prominent left wing personality who was banned from Twitter. I'll wait.
----
Now instead of arguing with me if you had just bothered to look this up yourself you would have gotten to the truth. But nope. You want to waste your time and my time going around in circles and posting ridiculous analogies. And even worse you are unable to comprehend anything in full. Be it the article which I linked of Amazon falsely accusing Parler or the Parler Guidelines themselves. This is because you are more interested in proving me wrong than trying to understand the subject matter at hand. In the process you are just exposing yourself completely.
I have answered all your questions without beating around the bush or posting stupid analogies. After this point I won't give any further replies as the discussion is devolving into an argument over who is right and who is wrong rather than the pressing issue of Big Tech dominance (Which is what I am concerned about and which you seem to not care about - which is fine as well. To each his own).
> Here's their exact words:
> We prefer to leave decisions about what is seen and who is heard to each individual. _In no case will Parler decide what will content be removed or filtered, or whose account will be removed, on the basis of the opinion expressed within the content at issue._
Right. And as usual you conveniently skipped the part that comes after this in the "Principles" section which is what any leftist liberal would do. This again busts your propaganda about Parler allowing violence, hate speech on their platform as being mentioned in their policy. Lie by selectively quoting guidelines. You can play this game all you want but it won't work in a Court of Law nor will it work with me. All Parler has to do now is sue Amazon for lying in their email that Parler doesn't have a policy on tackling hate speech.
> My comment repeatedly says Parler allows hate speech
Bullcrap. I'll disprove your nonsense by quoting straight out of the Parler Guidelines:
"Parler will not knowingly allow itself to be used as a tool for crime, civil torts, or other unlawful acts. We will remove reported member content that a reasonable and objective observer would believe constitutes or evidences such activity. We may also remove the accounts of members who use our platform in this way.
Sometimes the law properly requires us to exclude content from our platform once it is reported to us or to our Community Jury—content we would make it a priority to exclude anyway. Obvious examples include: child sexual abuse material, content posted by or on behalf of terrorist organizations, intellectual property theft.
However, even when the law may not require us to flag or remove reported content, or to ban a member, we will nonetheless do so when we deem it necessary to prevent our services from being used by someone in the commission of a crime or civil tort—particularly when these are likely to interfere with our mission of providing a welcoming, nonpartisan Public Square. Examples include criminal solicitation, fraud, and nuisance."
In case you did not know the meaning, "civil torts" encompasses hate speech and much much more.
LINK TO THE PARLER GUIDELINES (because you were scared to link it in the first place): https://legal.parler.com/documents/guidelines.pdf
----
> Stop doing this. Stop trying to throw up a smoke screen by building up strawman after straw man.
I am not. You are. You just embarrassed yourself by selectively quoting from the guidelines. Stop lying to just prove a point. By not linking to the Guidelines you made it amply clear what your intent is.
----
> I won't answer you anymore until you answer two questions:
You won't be able to answer after you read this comment anyways. I did not want to embarrass you but you are repeatedly asking for it so I'll gladly oblige.
----
> Answer thise questions, not with another unrelated question or diatribe which I'll easily dismantle.
You couldn't dismantle anything. On the contrary I dismantled your lie that Parler doesn't have a hate speech policy in place.
> Just yes or no, or you'll have shown who's really beating around the bush
> 1. Does Parler allow hate speech (with the reminder that it is not illegal in their jurisdiction)
NO. I just disproved it quoting straight from their guidelines. They even have guidelines on how to report illegal and hate content here: https://legal.parler.com/documents/Parler-Community-Jury.pdf
> 2. Do you believe Twitter only deletes Right Wing content.
YES. Left wingers are left untouched. The only time the left wing was up in arms against Twitter was when their bot/fake/pseudonym-based accounts were deleted and they trended #StopTheLeftPurge. No prominent left winger was banned. No account of any prominent left winger who called for assassination of Trump was banned. Most prominent left wingers were left alone with just a rap on their knuckle after they posted incendiary tweets (some of them were even anti-semetic). And those who posted anti-semetic tweets were Congressmen/women. Not some lunatic with zero followers and with low engagement tweets. If a prominent Right wing account had posted something similar they would have gotten an insta-ban. That ex-PM of Malaysia literally called for genocide of millions of French. Was his account banned? Nope. After that there have been multiple terror attacks in France. If Trump's speech can be linked to US Capitol violence then why can't the ex-PM of Malaysia's tweet be linked to the series of terror attacks that put France on the edge? See the dichotomy?
Do you have evidence of any prominent Left wing personality being banned from Twitter? I can give you examples of hundreds of prominent Right wing personalities purged from Twitter. Name one prominent left wing personality who was banned from Twitter. I'll wait.
----
Now instead of arguing with me if you had just bothered to look this up yourself you would have gotten to the truth. But nope. You want to waste your time and my time going around in circles and posting ridiculous analogies. And even worse you are unable to comprehend anything in full. Be it the article which I linked of Amazon falsely accusing Parler or the Parler Guidelines themselves. This is because you are more interested in proving me wrong than trying to understand the subject matter at hand. In the process you are just exposing yourself completely.
I have answered all your questions without beating around the bush or posting stupid analogies. After this point I won't give any further replies as the discussion is devolving into an argument over who is right and who is wrong rather than the pressing issue of Big Tech dominance (Which is what I am concerned about and which you seem to not care about - which is fine as well. To each his own).
> And also what are you even trying to say, that the reason why Parler was banned was those images?
Yes I am saying these are the images for which Parler was banned. Maybe you should do your research before you happen to accuse me of saying things I never said. These images were provided by Amazon to Parler as a justification to remove Parler from AWS. These images were not taken by me or provided by me.
The article which covers these images:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
> Haha, no. It was because of the ratio of that kind of content to all the content.
No evidence to back up your claim here. Again, this is the sort of stupid left wing bubble that makes up most left wingers. Unless you can say exactly how much of the content was violent on Parler your guess is as good as mine. I just showed the GP evidence on how Twitter doesn't remove hate speech on its platform much the same as Parler. That is about it. I can dig thousands of tweets for you which show hate speech. I am not going to waste my time doing it. If Amazon can use the above images as justification to remove Parler then Twitter being online is hypocritical.
Yes I am saying these are the images for which Parler was banned. Maybe you should do your research before you happen to accuse me of saying things I never said. These images were provided by Amazon to Parler as a justification to remove Parler from AWS. These images were not taken by me or provided by me.
The article which covers these images:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
> Haha, no. It was because of the ratio of that kind of content to all the content.
No evidence to back up your claim here. Again, this is the sort of stupid left wing bubble that makes up most left wingers. Unless you can say exactly how much of the content was violent on Parler your guess is as good as mine. I just showed the GP evidence on how Twitter doesn't remove hate speech on its platform much the same as Parler. That is about it. I can dig thousands of tweets for you which show hate speech. I am not going to waste my time doing it. If Amazon can use the above images as justification to remove Parler then Twitter being online is hypocritical.
It's funny that you ascribed a political slant to me.
Go back and read every comment I've made as if I'm a 65 year old white man with greying hair who's voted Republican every year except this one because I didn't approve of Trump's handling of Coronavirus.
Does anything change? Do my comments ring any less true?
As I explained above, you also don't believe just those images that got them banned, it's the context they exist in that matters, that's literally what the next line says!
And of course I explained exactly why I can confidently say Parler's ratio of hate speech would be higher... because their differentiator is literally not moderating hate speech since it counts as free speech.
Go back and read every comment I've made as if I'm a 65 year old white man with greying hair who's voted Republican every year except this one because I didn't approve of Trump's handling of Coronavirus.
Does anything change? Do my comments ring any less true?
As I explained above, you also don't believe just those images that got them banned, it's the context they exist in that matters, that's literally what the next line says!
And of course I explained exactly why I can confidently say Parler's ratio of hate speech would be higher... because their differentiator is literally not moderating hate speech since it counts as free speech.
> because their differentiator is literally not moderating hate speech since it counts as free speech.
False. Have already shown with evidence that they were indeed moderating hate speech and did indeed have it clearly, unambiguously defined in their guidelines. No matter how much you try to twist it the facts are staring back in your face. That guidelines do exist.
There is literally no differentiator between Twitter and Parler. Both take their own sweet time to moderate violent content/hate speech. Yet Amazon finds Parler not moderating "with urgency" a requirement to terminate business with Parler while renewing cloud contracts with Twitter for the same damn thing. I haven't seen a bigger hypocritical bunch.
And what will this lead to? Fragmentation and balkanization of the internet.
False. Have already shown with evidence that they were indeed moderating hate speech and did indeed have it clearly, unambiguously defined in their guidelines. No matter how much you try to twist it the facts are staring back in your face. That guidelines do exist.
There is literally no differentiator between Twitter and Parler. Both take their own sweet time to moderate violent content/hate speech. Yet Amazon finds Parler not moderating "with urgency" a requirement to terminate business with Parler while renewing cloud contracts with Twitter for the same damn thing. I haven't seen a bigger hypocritical bunch.
And what will this lead to? Fragmentation and balkanization of the internet.
> Have already shown with evidence that they were indeed moderating hate speech and did indeed have it clearly, unambiguously defined in their guidelines.
You have not done this. Parler allows hate speech.
Parler literally takes it as a principle that they only "censor" illegal content and span jurisdiction. That excludes hate speech.
Hate speech is not illegal in Parler and Twitter's jurisdiction for the hundredth time.
That's why they were banned.
You have not done this. Parler allows hate speech.
Parler literally takes it as a principle that they only "censor" illegal content and span jurisdiction. That excludes hate speech.
Hate speech is not illegal in Parler and Twitter's jurisdiction for the hundredth time.
That's why they were banned.
> Parler allows hate speech.
Parler literally says it doesn't allow itself to be used for "civil tort". I can't argue with you if you refuse to even acknowledge the legal terminology used here.
Anyways I'll leave this link for you to learn more about how Civil torts are used to combat hate speech: https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
Parler literally says it doesn't allow itself to be used for "civil tort". I can't argue with you if you refuse to even acknowledge the legal terminology used here.
Anyways I'll leave this link for you to learn more about how Civil torts are used to combat hate speech: https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
I searched this and it looks like it was already explained over this 6 years ago?: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2014/03/a-twitte...
I searched that and the top result was a tweet insulting anyone who even says it.
-
Overall that looks like a pretty hyperbolic statement rather than a credible threat.
Whereas "kill Mike Pence" after a group storms the Capitol building sounds a lot less hyperbolic.
I searched that and the top result was a tweet insulting anyone who even says it.
-
Overall that looks like a pretty hyperbolic statement rather than a credible threat.
Whereas "kill Mike Pence" after a group storms the Capitol building sounds a lot less hyperbolic.
Let the time speaking by itself. Parler will end up in court.
Why ? Because for years, Trump's administration (I don't recall but maybe Obama's also) is fighting against "Fake News", forcing platforms to do fact checking "or else".
A new platform emerging, promoting its lack of control over that will irremediably leads to huge abuses and scandals. It's just a matter of time.
A massive scandal over a year, a closure over two or three tops.
Why ? Because for years, Trump's administration (I don't recall but maybe Obama's also) is fighting against "Fake News", forcing platforms to do fact checking "or else".
A new platform emerging, promoting its lack of control over that will irremediably leads to huge abuses and scandals. It's just a matter of time.
A massive scandal over a year, a closure over two or three tops.
This does seem like the obvious outcome. We just witnessed the self-initiated shutdown of Voat, which was different in concept but similar in intention. Maybe they saw the writing on the wall?
Our world is just fundamentally different from the one where absolute freedom of speech could be guaranteed.
Look at Ted Kaczynski, a terrorist with some very strange ideas. Although he had freedom of speech, he had no means to get his ideas out in front of more people. He had to resort to extreme measures, like a bombing campaign to blackmail newspapers into printing his manifesto.
If he was active today, he’d just post it on YouTube and gather millions of views. If YouTube gets squeamish about the violence, move to Parler.
It was easy to guarantee freedom of speech to everyone when people like Ted no means of actually broadcasting their ideas without being gatekeeped by newspaper editors.
Our world is different now. It saddens me to say this but maybe our principles have to adapt too.
Look at Ted Kaczynski, a terrorist with some very strange ideas. Although he had freedom of speech, he had no means to get his ideas out in front of more people. He had to resort to extreme measures, like a bombing campaign to blackmail newspapers into printing his manifesto.
If he was active today, he’d just post it on YouTube and gather millions of views. If YouTube gets squeamish about the violence, move to Parler.
It was easy to guarantee freedom of speech to everyone when people like Ted no means of actually broadcasting their ideas without being gatekeeped by newspaper editors.
Our world is different now. It saddens me to say this but maybe our principles have to adapt too.
Kaszynski could have published a book. If none of the major publishers would have carried it, be could find an alternative publisher, or even self-publish. If it weren't sold in stores, it could have been photocopied. Remember that samizdat existed in the Soviet Union without requiring terrorism to publish.
No, he wanted eyeballs, and the best way to get those was to mail bombs. He wanted to terrify people into listening to him. His ideas weren't palatable on their own so he took a shortcut paid in human lives.
No, he wanted eyeballs, and the best way to get those was to mail bombs. He wanted to terrify people into listening to him. His ideas weren't palatable on their own so he took a shortcut paid in human lives.
> He had to resort to extreme measures, like a bombing campaign to blackmail newspapers into printing his manifesto.
I remember this. The things people will believe :) The idea that the two premiere newspapers carried in full, with great fanfare, the manifesto because of a few letter bombs is laughable.
("We don't negotiate with terrorists" was oddly a running theme back then, but no one ever accused the American public of being incapable of tolerationg gross cognitive dissonance. We're exceptionally good at it.)
The manifesto articulates a principalist position against technology that ultimately suggests complete deindustrialization as "solution" to unchecked integration of technology in human societies. This absurd non-solution, delivered via a "madman", is the precise reason it was broadcast to a bewildered world.
I remember this. The things people will believe :) The idea that the two premiere newspapers carried in full, with great fanfare, the manifesto because of a few letter bombs is laughable.
("We don't negotiate with terrorists" was oddly a running theme back then, but no one ever accused the American public of being incapable of tolerationg gross cognitive dissonance. We're exceptionally good at it.)
The manifesto articulates a principalist position against technology that ultimately suggests complete deindustrialization as "solution" to unchecked integration of technology in human societies. This absurd non-solution, delivered via a "madman", is the precise reason it was broadcast to a bewildered world.
> Look at Ted Kaczynski, a terrorist with some very strange ideas. Although he had freedom of speech, he had no means to get his ideas out in front of more people. He had to resort to extreme measures
So like, Ted Kaczynski was basically victim and world owned him millions of views? And when Ted Kaczynski cant get those millions of views, he "has to resort" to killing people?
And if Ted Kaczynski had youtube channel and the channel would be ignored, would he still be entitled to kill people to get more views?
So like, Ted Kaczynski was basically victim and world owned him millions of views? And when Ted Kaczynski cant get those millions of views, he "has to resort" to killing people?
And if Ted Kaczynski had youtube channel and the channel would be ignored, would he still be entitled to kill people to get more views?
Violence should always be a last resort. The idea is to give people other options so they never feel the need to go there.
What are you proposing?
What are you proposing?
The violence was his only option to be know by many people. Wanting to be know by many people is not valid use of violence. That is what I propose. If you cant convince people to follow you in your community and then enlarge it like any other political operatives in the same period did, then you accept that you failed to find followers.
Bombing is not valid option. I am saying that Ted Kaczynski had no option other then violence complete nonsense.
Bombing is not valid option. I am saying that Ted Kaczynski had no option other then violence complete nonsense.
This reply is incoherent. Uttering "X is invalid" doesn't do anything about X. I encourage you to consider more effective solutions.
Well at teh end of the day the guy was right if anything you are not making your case properly, we live in a cyberpunk dystopia and maybe maybe if more people though like him, instead of licking Jeff Bezzos boot, then we would not have people mpeeing in bottles to make him and the technocrats richer by the second.
They werent strange ideas, they are a crude reality that we have seen deployed ever since.
There was never world where absolute freedom of speech could be guaranteed. Hell, it used to the christian right that was one pushing censorship.
Free speech is so invaluable that it is insane to squander for such an inconsequential event. It has the ability to save millions. It could cost us a lot before this would even be a real discussion.
Inconsequential event? This is the aftermath of an attempted coup on our democracy. I would like to know what is consequential in your book.
No 'attempted coup' is inconsequential, but if you want to compare these events to coups and their attempts historically, go right ahead[0].
Looking down that staggeringly long list, I can say with some confidence that this was one of the more inconsequential attempts historically.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempt...
Looking down that staggeringly long list, I can say with some confidence that this was one of the more inconsequential attempts historically.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempt...
If the mob that invaded the Capitol building had managed to get to the senators and representatives before they were evacuated, what do you think the mob would have done to them? I think its clear that a substantial number of them would have been murdered.
From here in Europe it looked like an improvised coup attempt. Not a coup as in taking over the country, but a coup as in decapitating part of the government.
From here in Europe it looked like an improvised coup attempt. Not a coup as in taking over the country, but a coup as in decapitating part of the government.
A coup means taking over the country. Decapitating part of the government is assassination. /pedantry
> A coup means taking over the country. Decapitating part of the government is assassination. /pedantry
"Definition of coup d'état
: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics
especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup%20d'%C3%A9ta...
I'm not sure pedantry contributes much in the circumstances.
"Definition of coup d'état
: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics
especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup%20d'%C3%A9ta...
I'm not sure pedantry contributes much in the circumstances.
Riiiight... "IF"
So you mean, like IF there wasn't a gargantuan 'security' apparatus in place just waiting to nip anything like that that was even remotely a _serious_ threat in the bud?
(yawn..your ridiculous)
hypotheticals don't work.
Free speech refers to government censorship. There is no requirement of anyone or any company to listen to your free speech, or to host it.
Right now this is true. But I think you are slightly misunderstanding the situation. The real question is, should society allow major communications networks used by the majority of a population (private or public) to censor speech.
This is the question for this generation. The laws and constitution can be changed to reflect the will of the majority.
So stop arguing about what the law says now and look at the bigger picture. What should the law say.
This is the question for this generation. The laws and constitution can be changed to reflect the will of the majority.
So stop arguing about what the law says now and look at the bigger picture. What should the law say.
> Free speech refers to government censorship.
No, free speech refers to free speech. Government censorship is one thing that can prevent speech being free, but not the only one.
Or put another way, there is a legal concept of "freedom of speech", rooted in the First Amendment in the US, and there is a somewhat separate moral concept, which can be both narrower and broader than the legal one. There is some pretty widespread disagreement on the exact boundaries of the moral concep.
The legal concept did not create the moral concept. The reason there is a First Amendment is that the value of free speech already existed, and was codified, in one limited domain, in the Constitution.
And I am quite sure that if the moral concept becomes too narrow, with overwhelming support for speech restrictions in the population in general, the legal concept will follow, via the amendment process... Which makes it a priority, for me, to push back on attempts to narrow the moral concept absent great need.
Or to put it another way: There is no legal requirement for a non-government entity to allow various speech in the US. But in many cases I would argue there is a moral requirement, even if they disagree with the content of the speech. Obviously, being a moral requirement, there is a line the entity needs to decide on for itself after which it will no longer support said speech.
No, free speech refers to free speech. Government censorship is one thing that can prevent speech being free, but not the only one.
Or put another way, there is a legal concept of "freedom of speech", rooted in the First Amendment in the US, and there is a somewhat separate moral concept, which can be both narrower and broader than the legal one. There is some pretty widespread disagreement on the exact boundaries of the moral concep.
The legal concept did not create the moral concept. The reason there is a First Amendment is that the value of free speech already existed, and was codified, in one limited domain, in the Constitution.
And I am quite sure that if the moral concept becomes too narrow, with overwhelming support for speech restrictions in the population in general, the legal concept will follow, via the amendment process... Which makes it a priority, for me, to push back on attempts to narrow the moral concept absent great need.
Or to put it another way: There is no legal requirement for a non-government entity to allow various speech in the US. But in many cases I would argue there is a moral requirement, even if they disagree with the content of the speech. Obviously, being a moral requirement, there is a line the entity needs to decide on for itself after which it will no longer support said speech.
Do the tendrils not intertwine?
Manufacturing Consent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuwmWnphqII
Manufacturing Consent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuwmWnphqII
The 1st Amendment prohibits government censorship. Free Speech is a larger concept than just the 1st Amendment. It's the ability to speak things that society would prefer not to be spoken. No one needs to listen to it, but if the only place you can speak it is where no one can hear you, is it even really speech?
On top of that, the United States has never had "free speech without limits." Or any rights without limits. A core tenet of at least one political ideology in the United States is the idea that one's rights only extend as far as another's unharmed state of existence. i.e. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/15/liberty-fist-nose/
Such limitations in the case of the first amendment are pretty well captured here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
Credible threats of violence and incitement register with exceptionally strong precedent. Fighting words and threatening the President-Elect of the United States are two such categories of unprotected speech with, again, exceptionally strong precedent.
Anyone claiming their freedom of speech is being violated in this scenario by pushing fighting words and specific threats may be failing to understand:
1. that such freedoms don't extend as protection from being barred by private property and enterprise, and
2. that even if they did, their words are exempt... again, with strong law and case law.
I do agree that there's value in exploring registering social media and communications platforms as utilities. I don't yet know the implications of such.
And on another note (and borrowing from an earlier comment of mine), I do wonder how many of the Parler removals that have taken place used Wednesday as the justification but in reality were done for FOSTA/SESTA cover, which ironically is a law passed within the last few years.
Such limitations in the case of the first amendment are pretty well captured here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
Credible threats of violence and incitement register with exceptionally strong precedent. Fighting words and threatening the President-Elect of the United States are two such categories of unprotected speech with, again, exceptionally strong precedent.
Anyone claiming their freedom of speech is being violated in this scenario by pushing fighting words and specific threats may be failing to understand:
1. that such freedoms don't extend as protection from being barred by private property and enterprise, and
2. that even if they did, their words are exempt... again, with strong law and case law.
I do agree that there's value in exploring registering social media and communications platforms as utilities. I don't yet know the implications of such.
And on another note (and borrowing from an earlier comment of mine), I do wonder how many of the Parler removals that have taken place used Wednesday as the justification but in reality were done for FOSTA/SESTA cover, which ironically is a law passed within the last few years.
Post-war Europe tends to agree with you: there is a good reason why there are limitations on free speech in many Western European countries. Fascism is simply too big of a threat to tolerate.
Well post-war Europe didn't invent the internet or land on the moon. You have your way of doing things, we have ours. Also sort of ironic that you would advocate the very same tools that the fascists themselves used to control and manipulate the public.
Those things were a cooperation. And you definitely don't want to read up who led the US space program.
I realize it's not very hip to be proud of the things we have accomplished in the United States, but that doesn't make them untrue or any less significant.
I'm not American and you should be proud of those achievements.
But when someone else criticizes some valid issues with the US and the reply is a sort of "did your country put men on the moon?", that's just ridiculous. Address the issue at hand.
But when someone else criticizes some valid issues with the US and the reply is a sort of "did your country put men on the moon?", that's just ridiculous. Address the issue at hand.
Is it any more ridiculous than the claim that limitations on speech can somehow stop fascism? What is your bar for ridiculous claims about the possible outcomes of the freedom of (or limitations on) speech? A culture that feels it is free to express itself as it desires certainly seems like less of a breeding ground for fascism than a culture which has grown to fear outlier ideas and divergence from the norm.
[deleted]
The question is - is it OK to shut people/companies down who themselves don’t believe in free speech?
Sometimes you have to silence people to let everyone else have their rights. And that’s what is happening here.
Trump supporters don’t support free speech or freedom of expression as a concept to be applied to everyone. They just want to have free speech themselves and for everyone else to shut up.
Sometimes you have to silence people to let everyone else have their rights. And that’s what is happening here.
Trump supporters don’t support free speech or freedom of expression as a concept to be applied to everyone. They just want to have free speech themselves and for everyone else to shut up.
Imagine a normal classroom where a single kid is constantly disrupting all discussions and lectures by yelling lies or inciting violence, disrupting with "Kill the teacher!" injections.
Of course these kids would be dealt with. They'd be removed, parent called, expelled so that all other kids can have fruitful discussions.
But somehow here we are discussing that the exact analogue in social media is somehow worthy of protection and being allowed to yell, spread disinformation and incite literal domestic terrorism, sedition and insurrection.
My European perspective on this is that speech should be as free as possible without crossing some strict borders. And for me, these borders clearly are calls for violence or destruction of the state. A democracy cannot exist without compromise.
Republicans and their far-right extremist equals in Europe are not willing or ready to achieve compromise. For decades it has been an "Us vs. them" instead of finding an optimal compromise. Their mode of operation is disrupt, gaslight, object. No matter how objectively true things are (climate change, Corona...)
It's not conservatism itself that is bad but at least since Reagan, the shape of conservatism in the US has become inhuman and disgusting. And the GOP is celebrating itself for it, cumulating in the terrorist MAGA cult.
Of course these kids would be dealt with. They'd be removed, parent called, expelled so that all other kids can have fruitful discussions.
But somehow here we are discussing that the exact analogue in social media is somehow worthy of protection and being allowed to yell, spread disinformation and incite literal domestic terrorism, sedition and insurrection.
My European perspective on this is that speech should be as free as possible without crossing some strict borders. And for me, these borders clearly are calls for violence or destruction of the state. A democracy cannot exist without compromise.
Republicans and their far-right extremist equals in Europe are not willing or ready to achieve compromise. For decades it has been an "Us vs. them" instead of finding an optimal compromise. Their mode of operation is disrupt, gaslight, object. No matter how objectively true things are (climate change, Corona...)
It's not conservatism itself that is bad but at least since Reagan, the shape of conservatism in the US has become inhuman and disgusting. And the GOP is celebrating itself for it, cumulating in the terrorist MAGA cult.
> A democracy cannot exist without compromise.
I think this is a key point that is currently at quite a low ebb worldwide. The appetite for compromise seems to be at an unhealthy nadir.
I understand that, when you think you are right and the other side is wrong or even evil, it can be difficult to want to compromise.
People are quick to cite polarization as the source, and yes, sure; but what causes and has caused this polarization? It's not like the world was never polarized before.
If the general decline in violence is true, such as claimed by e.g. Pinker (Better Angels etc), then maybe we are not actually more polarized than ever before? But the evidence seems conflicting at best.
Anyway, I don't have any answers.
I think this is a key point that is currently at quite a low ebb worldwide. The appetite for compromise seems to be at an unhealthy nadir.
I understand that, when you think you are right and the other side is wrong or even evil, it can be difficult to want to compromise.
People are quick to cite polarization as the source, and yes, sure; but what causes and has caused this polarization? It's not like the world was never polarized before.
If the general decline in violence is true, such as claimed by e.g. Pinker (Better Angels etc), then maybe we are not actually more polarized than ever before? But the evidence seems conflicting at best.
Anyway, I don't have any answers.
The problem with the analogy is that children have adults as teachers. But in politics, we are the adults, and there are no teachers who can be trusted to know better.
I also think your last paragraph is over-the-top, and probably reflects a relatively biased sample from the underlying facts.
I also think your last paragraph is over-the-top, and probably reflects a relatively biased sample from the underlying facts.
Probably true but I am capable of accepting this criticism without devolving into a foaming rage kid. I wrote the paragraph out of conviction that we face a social movement unlike anything we have known in modern times and that it isn't based on arguments but emotions and exploitation of social dynamics.
My ego isn't infinitely tied to my opinions and views - though to some degree it certainly must be. I don't believe in deleting what I wrote but maybe I could have written something less polemic. I was probably damaging discussions myself.
The question is always: can you take a step back, reflect and maybe adjust your opinions? I even understand resolute positions on ephemeric topics such as ethics and value systems.
One can have long discussions about how to deal with a hijacked airplane heading for a population center. But baseless opinions about a virus or measured climate change, such as outright denial of their existence or impacts, have no place in "adult" discussions.
We should be concerned about how to face these issues and not discuss with trolls and gaslighters about established, independently proven facts.
My ego isn't infinitely tied to my opinions and views - though to some degree it certainly must be. I don't believe in deleting what I wrote but maybe I could have written something less polemic. I was probably damaging discussions myself.
The question is always: can you take a step back, reflect and maybe adjust your opinions? I even understand resolute positions on ephemeric topics such as ethics and value systems.
One can have long discussions about how to deal with a hijacked airplane heading for a population center. But baseless opinions about a virus or measured climate change, such as outright denial of their existence or impacts, have no place in "adult" discussions.
We should be concerned about how to face these issues and not discuss with trolls and gaslighters about established, independently proven facts.
> "Trump supporters don’t support free speech or freedom of expression as a concept to be applied to everyone. They just want to have free speech themselves and for everyone else to shut up."
I think that is most people, especially when they are emotional.
I think that is most people, especially when they are emotional.
In South Africa we’re taught from a young age that while everyone has a “right to x”, codified in the Bill of Rights, each right comes with a “responsibility”.
My “right to free speech” should not limit your “right to religion” or your “right to political association”, and in this case “your right to safety”.
While South Africa has a lot of improvement to do, the understanding that rights need to be self-limiting in order to remain sustainable is a very good starting point in a constitutional democracy.
My “right to free speech” should not limit your “right to religion” or your “right to political association”, and in this case “your right to safety”.
While South Africa has a lot of improvement to do, the understanding that rights need to be self-limiting in order to remain sustainable is a very good starting point in a constitutional democracy.
I’ve always thought about it like this: one person’s freedom stops where another person’s freedom begins. When freedoms start conflicting, a negotiated compromise is needed and thus legislation is often involved. So, for example, it should be illegal to threaten somebody’s personal safety, because otherwise there isn’t a good balance between freedom of speech and freedom of security.
The corollary to this is that as population density increases freedom gets more limited, because people’s circles of freedom overlap more. Modern society has a lot more limitations on personal freedom because that is the only way to equally provide access to freedom to everyone in a denser world.
The corollary to this is that as population density increases freedom gets more limited, because people’s circles of freedom overlap more. Modern society has a lot more limitations on personal freedom because that is the only way to equally provide access to freedom to everyone in a denser world.
> So, for example, it should be illegal to threaten somebody’s personal safety
Even this seemingly-simple example is complicated in practice: who decides whether safety is threatened? I have seen people claim to feel physically unsafe whenever someone raises the question of how specific women's sports should handle participation trans women, and I have seen other people claim to feel physically unsafe when someone suggests raising taxes to fund more public services (immediately reaching for comparisons to the USSR in the 1930s).
Is the test then whether someone feels unsafe as a result of the speech? Or whether a "reasonable person" would feel unsafe? And so on, and so forth.
There's really no good way to win completely here: either some people are going to feel unsafe, or you have to have _quite_ draconian speech restrictions to try to avoid that (and probably still fail). You might be able to do something that works for neurotypical-enough people, but that's the best I can see.
Even this seemingly-simple example is complicated in practice: who decides whether safety is threatened? I have seen people claim to feel physically unsafe whenever someone raises the question of how specific women's sports should handle participation trans women, and I have seen other people claim to feel physically unsafe when someone suggests raising taxes to fund more public services (immediately reaching for comparisons to the USSR in the 1930s).
Is the test then whether someone feels unsafe as a result of the speech? Or whether a "reasonable person" would feel unsafe? And so on, and so forth.
There's really no good way to win completely here: either some people are going to feel unsafe, or you have to have _quite_ draconian speech restrictions to try to avoid that (and probably still fail). You might be able to do something that works for neurotypical-enough people, but that's the best I can see.
Then you could just as well say "your right to religion should not limit my right to free speech"?
IANAL but in South Africa the Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically outline limitations and how rights interact.
So for example, it is explicit that freedom of expression cannot limit another’s freedom to practice their religion [2].
Furthermore it has been determined that freedom of religion is not absolute [3], for example that religious objections cannot prevent a women from seeking an abortion, or for a same-sex couple to marry. And indeed these two examples are protected by law.
So yes you can say that “your right to religion should not limit my right to free speech”, but there is no conflict of interest or ambiguity in terms of how these two rights interact. In South Africa the line is drawn in the sand already. While this may seem like a hardline (pun not intended), it’s important to understand South Africa’s dark history with selective rights and freedoms, and that the one of the lessons learnt is the explicit outline of rights and their limitations in the Constitution. South Africa is a young democracy and these limitations are a feature of fairly recent history.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_South_Africa
[2] https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-2-bill-rig...
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_South...
So for example, it is explicit that freedom of expression cannot limit another’s freedom to practice their religion [2].
Furthermore it has been determined that freedom of religion is not absolute [3], for example that religious objections cannot prevent a women from seeking an abortion, or for a same-sex couple to marry. And indeed these two examples are protected by law.
So yes you can say that “your right to religion should not limit my right to free speech”, but there is no conflict of interest or ambiguity in terms of how these two rights interact. In South Africa the line is drawn in the sand already. While this may seem like a hardline (pun not intended), it’s important to understand South Africa’s dark history with selective rights and freedoms, and that the one of the lessons learnt is the explicit outline of rights and their limitations in the Constitution. South Africa is a young democracy and these limitations are a feature of fairly recent history.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_South_Africa
[2] https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-2-bill-rig...
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_South...
How can free speech limit a "right to religion" or a "right to association"?
The anti-Semitic rhetoric we see from certain groups is “free speech” that is likely to at least make Jews feel unwelcome in certain spaces, and potentially force them to conceal their religious and racial identities for fear of violence. See also the anti-Muslim rhetoric.
These are in large part motivated by racism but much of the language used is religious and about religion.
These are in large part motivated by racism but much of the language used is religious and about religion.
Free speech used to be fine because people used to be exposed to alternative opinions. Now people get put into bubbles by algorithms which show them more of what they want, rather than giving them a healthy diet of diverse opinions. Without that, some people can be easily led to believe any old propaganda and radicalised. The check on extremism has fallen off thanks to personalisation creating echo chambers.
For that reason, a P2P Twitter-type platform where accounts couldn't be removed would be potentially very dangerous.
I would rather try to deal with free speech by looking at personalisation and filter bubbles, perhaps mandating some kind of diversity gets baked into algorithms, which seems to lie at the root of the issue (that and economic inequality).
For that reason, a P2P Twitter-type platform where accounts couldn't be removed would be potentially very dangerous.
I would rather try to deal with free speech by looking at personalisation and filter bubbles, perhaps mandating some kind of diversity gets baked into algorithms, which seems to lie at the root of the issue (that and economic inequality).
You hit on an important point here. Regardless of your ethical opinion on current event, deplatforming/censorship/banning/etc... is going to push more and more people to communicate on more anonymouse p2p censorship resistant platforms, and 10 years from now, those might be the standard.
So if Amazon decide that some company is a dangerous competitor to them, and that company uses AWS, then they could just immediately shut down their competitor, because they could find some "hate content" on their website. What about thousands of hate articles sold in Germany by Amazon? Amazon is even selling "Mein Kampf" - a nazi book that is forbidden in Germany. Yeah, a terrorist content is absolutely OK if it's sold by Amazon.
> So if Amazon decide that some company is a dangerous competitor to them, and that company uses AWS, then they could just immediately shut down their competitor, because they could find some "hate content" on their website.
That's in the TOS, yes. Or actually, a lot more broader: activities "that may be harmful to others, our operations or reputation," are reasons for termination. (EDIT: I now actually wonder if they grant large customers with specially negotiated deals explicit changes to these terms - if you do a large multi-year contract, surely your lawyers would want some more security on that)
Re your example, at least from a quick look at the search results, the versions of "Mein Kampf" Amazon.de offers are all legal to sell in Germany. (Its legal status was and is ... somewhat complicated, changed in recent years due to copyright expiring, and "it's banned" is not quite accurate)
That's in the TOS, yes. Or actually, a lot more broader: activities "that may be harmful to others, our operations or reputation," are reasons for termination. (EDIT: I now actually wonder if they grant large customers with specially negotiated deals explicit changes to these terms - if you do a large multi-year contract, surely your lawyers would want some more security on that)
Re your example, at least from a quick look at the search results, the versions of "Mein Kampf" Amazon.de offers are all legal to sell in Germany. (Its legal status was and is ... somewhat complicated, changed in recent years due to copyright expiring, and "it's banned" is not quite accurate)
I don't think Mein Kampf is banned in Germany.
You are right, it isn't. The situation is complex though. After WWII the Bavarian state claimed copyrights of "Mein Kampf" as Hitler was registered as a Munich citizen. Based on this copyright, publishers were not allowed to print and import it. Sales of books printed before 1945 were still allowed, based on a ruling of the German supreme court. The copyrights have lapsed recently, so technically, the book can be printed and traded again in Germany, as long as you are not using it to promote otherwise illegal activities, like exhibiting the Swatiska as a political symbol. Also, it has been put on the index, this means, you cannot publically advertise it and sell it to underage persons.
In the meantime, the Bavarian state has brought it to market again in a commented form. The original text is reproduced together with comments on the text. This issue is freely traded and even used in historical education at schools.
In the meantime, the Bavarian state has brought it to market again in a commented form. The original text is reproduced together with comments on the text. This issue is freely traded and even used in historical education at schools.
[deleted]
Mein Kampf is not forbidden in Germany. There is also nearly zero risk that Mein Kampf will radicalize contemporary people. It is not exactly persuasive piece of writing.
I think you're confusing free speech and capitalism. Amazon can boot you from their platform whenever they want. If however this violates the contract you have with them (e.g. there has been no violation of the ToS) you can sue for damages.
[deleted]
> or speech that discriminates against people for immutable characteristics of their person
Often said, yet it somehow very often excludes religion, which is not immutable, and very often includes simple matters such as intelligence, which is immutable.
I find that more often than not, when a man speaks of such “immutable" traits, what he really means is “whatever the culture I grew up in arbitrarily treats much like an ethnicity, a tribe, something to owe fealty to” — religion is that in many cultures, but intelligence is not.
And I stress how cultural it is: it is often noted that in Japan religion is not treated as such a tribe, culturally, and that Japanese persons often find it curious how residents of other cultures can owe a lifelong fealty to a single religion rather than experiencing elements of multiple religions as it be suitable.
One could argue that such things are so associated with immutability merely because they are treated as a fealty in their respective cultures, a lifelong allegiance, and that switching sides is considered such a betrayal, that they are culturally made immutable, even though there is obviously no reason why religion or political affiliation should be.
Often said, yet it somehow very often excludes religion, which is not immutable, and very often includes simple matters such as intelligence, which is immutable.
I find that more often than not, when a man speaks of such “immutable" traits, what he really means is “whatever the culture I grew up in arbitrarily treats much like an ethnicity, a tribe, something to owe fealty to” — religion is that in many cultures, but intelligence is not.
And I stress how cultural it is: it is often noted that in Japan religion is not treated as such a tribe, culturally, and that Japanese persons often find it curious how residents of other cultures can owe a lifelong fealty to a single religion rather than experiencing elements of multiple religions as it be suitable.
One could argue that such things are so associated with immutability merely because they are treated as a fealty in their respective cultures, a lifelong allegiance, and that switching sides is considered such a betrayal, that they are culturally made immutable, even though there is obviously no reason why religion or political affiliation should be.
>> And I stress how cultural it is: it is often noted that in Japan religion is not treated as such a tribe, culturally, and that Japanese persons often find it curious how residents of other cultures can owe a lifelong fealty to a single religion rather than experiencing elements of multiple religions as it be suitable.
You seem to conveniently ignore the blindingly simple context that for the past 20 years, America has been bombing and invading a single region of the world in the name of evangelical fanatics from the bible belt.
And that's looking past the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan where America created and armed the Taliban. It's not snowflake grievance culture to suggest there is a targetted religion here.
You seem to conveniently ignore the blindingly simple context that for the past 20 years, America has been bombing and invading a single region of the world in the name of evangelical fanatics from the bible belt.
And that's looking past the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan where America created and armed the Taliban. It's not snowflake grievance culture to suggest there is a targetted religion here.
I fail to see how that is even related to that what is considered such a fealty one owes lifelong allegiance to differs from culture to culture.
Large swathes of the target population are run by dictators funded by America's geopolitical strategic initiatives. We are agreed in some sense: religion is a unifying cause which leads to irrational tribalism. The point is these are societies that have constantly been interfered with due to western military adventures and it's quite easy to unify a rallying cause. Not least in immigrant populations resident in the West, such as myself.
Right.
I fully 100% support the ability of Facebook, Twitter, etc to ban accounts. They have every legal and moral right to do so. Rembember that freedom of association is also a thing.
At the same time, I recognize that sufficently powerful corporations are practically just another form of government. Does it really make practical difference to you if a government says "you can't say that", vs a monopolist/trust/cartel saying the same thing?
But that only points out the fact that, for example, Facebook should not exist in its current form. That fact that that it is basically the only significant player in its niche points to a spectacular market failure, one likely compounded by unlawful monopolistic practices by Facebook.
There should instead be multiple viable competing services in such spaces. If it takes alienating decent sized chunks of the population to eventually get a viable competitor, then so be it. And no Parler is certainly not that viable competitor. But if Facebook's actions piss of enough people who are not extremists, then a true competitor might actually start to emerge.
The same applies to Apple/Amazon/Google.
---
After thought:
Seriously who is the #2 competitor to Facebook's main service? There really does not seem to be any significant competitor in the English speaking world. While on the other hand, Amazon for example has fairly clear competitors for most of its products, at least in the US. Walmart/EBay competes with the shopping, GCP/Azure compete with AWS, YouTube Gaming competes with Twitch, multiple streaming services compete with the video and music offerings, etc. Apple likewise has competitors for pretty much all of their offerings. Even Google has competition on most of their products.
I fully 100% support the ability of Facebook, Twitter, etc to ban accounts. They have every legal and moral right to do so. Rembember that freedom of association is also a thing.
At the same time, I recognize that sufficently powerful corporations are practically just another form of government. Does it really make practical difference to you if a government says "you can't say that", vs a monopolist/trust/cartel saying the same thing?
But that only points out the fact that, for example, Facebook should not exist in its current form. That fact that that it is basically the only significant player in its niche points to a spectacular market failure, one likely compounded by unlawful monopolistic practices by Facebook.
There should instead be multiple viable competing services in such spaces. If it takes alienating decent sized chunks of the population to eventually get a viable competitor, then so be it. And no Parler is certainly not that viable competitor. But if Facebook's actions piss of enough people who are not extremists, then a true competitor might actually start to emerge.
The same applies to Apple/Amazon/Google.
---
After thought:
Seriously who is the #2 competitor to Facebook's main service? There really does not seem to be any significant competitor in the English speaking world. While on the other hand, Amazon for example has fairly clear competitors for most of its products, at least in the US. Walmart/EBay competes with the shopping, GCP/Azure compete with AWS, YouTube Gaming competes with Twitch, multiple streaming services compete with the video and music offerings, etc. Apple likewise has competitors for pretty much all of their offerings. Even Google has competition on most of their products.
> I'm just going to come out and say something that I've had a hard self reflective time coming to the conclusion of. I don't believe in free speech without limits.
It’s a perfectly reasonable position, and IMO the correct one.
But speech has always been limited: incitement to violence, criminal conspiracy, libel, blasphemy (in many places), “public exposure of private facts” (damaging other people’s legitimately private life), revealing classified material ... and so on.
I think what people fail to distinguish is the free exchange of ideas - what totalitarian countries suppress - and the right to say whatever you like even it it’s to do deliberate harm for selfish ends.
The paradox of tolerance shows us that to have freedom we can actually use there must be limits on what we are free to do.
Organising and inciting an insurrection to overturn an election - what effect does that have on the speech and political rights of those who spoke for months to win the votes of the newly elected President? To respect the freedom of those people shouldn’t we restrict the speech of the former, when it is shown to have become dangerous?
It’s a perfectly reasonable position, and IMO the correct one.
But speech has always been limited: incitement to violence, criminal conspiracy, libel, blasphemy (in many places), “public exposure of private facts” (damaging other people’s legitimately private life), revealing classified material ... and so on.
I think what people fail to distinguish is the free exchange of ideas - what totalitarian countries suppress - and the right to say whatever you like even it it’s to do deliberate harm for selfish ends.
The paradox of tolerance shows us that to have freedom we can actually use there must be limits on what we are free to do.
Organising and inciting an insurrection to overturn an election - what effect does that have on the speech and political rights of those who spoke for months to win the votes of the newly elected President? To respect the freedom of those people shouldn’t we restrict the speech of the former, when it is shown to have become dangerous?
At the risk of massively overgeneralising, your conclusion is generally how free speech is generally aligned with how non-US western nations approach free speech.
IMO, nobody gets it 100% right 100% of the time, but the USA model isn’t the perfect or only solution.
Legislation has a place in limiting the power and reach of social media, which would naturally diffuse the kind of problems people have with big tech.
IMO, nobody gets it 100% right 100% of the time, but the USA model isn’t the perfect or only solution.
Legislation has a place in limiting the power and reach of social media, which would naturally diffuse the kind of problems people have with big tech.
> I don't believe in free speech without limits.
Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance[1]:
> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance[1]:
> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
A credible immediate threat of violence seems to cross the threshold of free speech, but is no-platforming the remedy? Because it is a pre-emptive meassure, should private companies needs to have power to do so?
I think prohibited speech should be addressed through post-fact punitive measures, not through blanket premptive actions.
Even if someone does say prohibited things, it does not necessarily follow that all that say ought to be prohibited. So no-platforming is morally and ethically problematic.
I think prohibited speech should be addressed through post-fact punitive measures, not through blanket premptive actions.
Even if someone does say prohibited things, it does not necessarily follow that all that say ought to be prohibited. So no-platforming is morally and ethically problematic.
If I own a bar, and you, a patron, start threatening people (prohibited speech), should I have the power to (pre-emptively) have the bouncer toss you out? Or should I be forced to take only "post-fact" measures, and just stand there and let the brawl happen and wait patiently for police to arrive?
To me, it seems more ethically problematic to allow immediate threats of violence to proliferate on a platform unchecked until it can be proven that violence actually occurred, simply for the sake of ideological purity.
To me, it seems more ethically problematic to allow immediate threats of violence to proliferate on a platform unchecked until it can be proven that violence actually occurred, simply for the sake of ideological purity.
The problem there is that "history is written by the victors" and until they decide you're "one man's freedom fighter" you're de facto "another man's terrorist".
Taking steps to stop violence before it begins makes more sense than using hindsight to judge the merits of the violence.
IMO.
Taking steps to stop violence before it begins makes more sense than using hindsight to judge the merits of the violence.
IMO.
There is no merit to violence. Those who indulge in violence and other law breaking should suffer consequences. No-platforming however has no role in that.
I doubt if these platforms or anyone have the ability to determine legality of posts before they are made.
I doubt if these platforms or anyone have the ability to determine legality of posts before they are made.
I would propose an expansion to your boundaries because even if someone wasn't born someway, I don't see why it's any more morally clear-headed to treat someone better or worse just because they're an atheist or like anime, neither of which are obviously biologically inherent.
The law is not 'free speech without limits.' There are lots of types of illegal speech, many of them much less exciting than incitement. Practically, it can be difficult to bring court cases related to every potential violation of the law related to speech as it relates to online platforms. This is partly a practical issue. Due process is expensive, and only the courts can provide due process adequately.
When it becomes very cheap to violate the law and remains expensive to enforce the law, obviously we see a lot of lawbreaking ensue. The solution ought not to be to sweep away the First Amendment, but to do a combination of things that:
1. Makes it feasible to enforce the law on internet speech when and where it applies 2. Go enforce that law
The First Amendment exists in a context of assumed liability for publishers. This may have been more practical when there aren't that many publishers. When there are $billions of publishers, the deterrent impact of liability fear just isn't there. Regulation is also an alternative to making law enforcement more practical and affordable. If you don't want to expend the resources prosecuting every violation of the law, you have to take some proactive steps to manage the environment to reduce potential violations. This is why you have the FCC regulating content on broadcast media, for example.
When it becomes very cheap to violate the law and remains expensive to enforce the law, obviously we see a lot of lawbreaking ensue. The solution ought not to be to sweep away the First Amendment, but to do a combination of things that:
1. Makes it feasible to enforce the law on internet speech when and where it applies 2. Go enforce that law
The First Amendment exists in a context of assumed liability for publishers. This may have been more practical when there aren't that many publishers. When there are $billions of publishers, the deterrent impact of liability fear just isn't there. Regulation is also an alternative to making law enforcement more practical and affordable. If you don't want to expend the resources prosecuting every violation of the law, you have to take some proactive steps to manage the environment to reduce potential violations. This is why you have the FCC regulating content on broadcast media, for example.
The problem is not free speech, the problem is anyone can have millions of people notified about what they say. If you limit followers to 50k or don't allow a message to have a reach of more than 50k, then you will solve part of the problem without touching free speech!
Then the celebrities will all go to platforms that don’t restrict them in that way, and their fans will follow them. If my kids see a meme and they can’t share it with their friends due to a limit, again try will just go to a service without such a limit.
Really disappointed to read this. Absolute free speech has been an American staple for many many years. I can only hope you’re in the minority with your beliefs.
I think it is the case, and what we're seeing online is chaff and noise and not reflective of what most American adults believe. Maybe it's Russian bots or whatever. Or children from Reddit. Or Europeans trying to dictate what they think American politics should be about. But it is true that the one thing that we (American adults) more often agree on than not are the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights.
Not really, no. Islamic terrorist propaganda has been banned for a while, and before that there was the Red scare era, where it was (and still is) illegal to be in the Communist party. Plus you had all the McCarthyism. Let us not also forget the Civil rights era, and all who were silenced and even killed for their speech then.
So I'm not really sure what time period you refer to where there was truly free speech in America?
So I'm not really sure what time period you refer to where there was truly free speech in America?
Isn't your view of freedom of speech basically the same as what's already law? Incitement of violence is already illegal. At least it is here in the UK, as is hate speech, but that's a slightly more grey area. Parler has clear ToS but they're failing to enforce them. I don't believe that warrants them being purged from existence.
> I don't believe in free speech without limits.
This. I have started to believe that although free speech is very important, it is only possible to have full free speech in a society where there is not too much hostility between groups. Otherwise it has become too easy to manipulate people, both in your own group and in groups that you are opposed to.
This. I have started to believe that although free speech is very important, it is only possible to have full free speech in a society where there is not too much hostility between groups. Otherwise it has become too easy to manipulate people, both in your own group and in groups that you are opposed to.
[deleted]
I think “speech at scale” should be defined differently that normal free speech. The societal impact of speech that is instantly broadcast to tens of millions of people is substantially different than the same speech being broadcast to 5-10 people.
You're right. It's not either/or. It is possible to have limits.
But the society should determine those limits. We are completely within our right to do so. If we don't want people stomping around claiming and ethnic group is subhuman and should be exterminated, society has the right to determine that. We choose our representatives, they make a law, and then that speech is no longer protected.
Now, the people who would be subjected to that limit are going to fight tooth and nail to defend it. They will espouse all manner of fallacy, especially the slippery slope that the US will become China or North Korea or Russia. These are intentional tactics to obfuscate the power of the majority for their nefarious schemes.
However, if the majority decides it wants to ban, say, all non-Christian speech, then other rights kick in: such as the right to practice any religion freely.
The Bill of Rights is a fairly astute document not just in its content but its malleability (hello prohibition & slavery & suffrage), because the Constitution was missing a lot of important things. Let's not underestimate it, nor let others do so.
But the society should determine those limits. We are completely within our right to do so. If we don't want people stomping around claiming and ethnic group is subhuman and should be exterminated, society has the right to determine that. We choose our representatives, they make a law, and then that speech is no longer protected.
Now, the people who would be subjected to that limit are going to fight tooth and nail to defend it. They will espouse all manner of fallacy, especially the slippery slope that the US will become China or North Korea or Russia. These are intentional tactics to obfuscate the power of the majority for their nefarious schemes.
However, if the majority decides it wants to ban, say, all non-Christian speech, then other rights kick in: such as the right to practice any religion freely.
The Bill of Rights is a fairly astute document not just in its content but its malleability (hello prohibition & slavery & suffrage), because the Constitution was missing a lot of important things. Let's not underestimate it, nor let others do so.
It's a wake up call for republicans.
Stop blaming fake news and alike.
Internet became liberal minefield swamp and you haven't done anything about it besides blaming.
Build the venues to reach people. Invest in media that speak your language.
Counter all fake news with strong and convincing media you control.
Do it before their "peaceful protestors" will burn the rest of our cities.
Internet became liberal minefield swamp and you haven't done anything about it besides blaming.
Build the venues to reach people. Invest in media that speak your language.
Counter all fake news with strong and convincing media you control.
Do it before their "peaceful protestors" will burn the rest of our cities.
What? The Republicans are the main beneficiary of fake news. They have their own media structure. Almost all talk radio is conservative, for example. It's hugely successful. People will pay money to be told that it's all the fault of the black/feminist/Marxist conspiracy. Especially if that's not true.
[deleted]
It's a wake up call for democrats. Stop blaming fake news and alike.
Internet became conservative minefield swamp and you haven't done anything about it besides blaming.
Build the venues to reach people. Invest in media that speak your language.
Counter all fake news with strong and convincing media you control.
Do it before their "peaceful protestors" will burn the rest of our cities.
Internet became conservative minefield swamp and you haven't done anything about it besides blaming.
Build the venues to reach people. Invest in media that speak your language.
Counter all fake news with strong and convincing media you control.
Do it before their "peaceful protestors" will burn the rest of our cities.
Fringe speech is okay as long as it is in a human-scale community. The community can ostracize the dangerous fringe and prevent it from growing. The internet makes it possible for the fringe from lots of communities to grow into something big enough to be dangerous. I am okay with “Big Tech” ostracizes fringe speech.
I feel like this post doesn't address the real risk that comes with suppression. What if we lived in a very different society, where basic ethical views were far outside prevailing norms? Is there a case for choosing discrimination as the newly banned form of speech other than the fact that egalitarianism is a key value in our society today--what is it?
I don't know much about Parler - it sounds like the key people there were real assholes and possibly criminals. There are any number of reasons that might apply for getting rid of it. Parler might not be the limiting case that decides our rule.
I don't know much about Parler - it sounds like the key people there were real assholes and possibly criminals. There are any number of reasons that might apply for getting rid of it. Parler might not be the limiting case that decides our rule.
Aren't basic ethical views and societal norms the same thing?
No. Ethics refers to rules and their practical application. Such rules can exist for any number of regulatory concerns and often define social norms given time.
Thanks. I've always just assumed if the masses of a society think something is unacceptable, then going against that norm would be considered unethical.
That's one reasonable perspective to take, but most people don't share it -- most of us think that something can be popular and bad.
I think there are simply some ideas that are too repugnant to not rebuke.
Then rebuke them, don't try and silence them. First off, you won't silence them, you'll just drive them to another platform or underground and in fact, likely give them even more credence (similar to the Streisand effect) - big tech just created a bunch of martyrs and "forbidden speech" and we all know how well it goes when things are "forbidden", it just attracts more people who want to be martyrs as well.
Then rebuke them, don't try and silence them. First off, you won't silence them, you'll just drive them to another platform or underground and in fact, likely give them even more credence (similar to the Streisand effect) - big tech just created a bunch of martyrs and "forbidden speech" and we all know how well it goes when things are "forbidden", it just attracts more people who want to be martyrs as well.
> discriminates against people for immutable characteristics of their person
By discriminate, do you mean "disparage" or simply "make a distinction between"? Or something else?
In either case, it seems like quite a low threshold, it seems like it would mean you condone a social network that bans people that say "I don't like white people" or "women can't drive"?
By discriminate, do you mean "disparage" or simply "make a distinction between"? Or something else?
In either case, it seems like quite a low threshold, it seems like it would mean you condone a social network that bans people that say "I don't like white people" or "women can't drive"?
> I don't believe in free speech without limits.
Does anyone?
I know people say they do, but they also reject the direct consequences of it, so obviously don’t mean it or don’t understand it.
Does anyone?
I know people say they do, but they also reject the direct consequences of it, so obviously don’t mean it or don’t understand it.
The same thing could be said about Twitter yet they aren't being pulled of from the app store. This wont end well.
Then one day, when a different government is in power, expect these same controls to be used to silence you.
Parler (and other services like it) has a contractual relationship with its users than enable it, and it's users, to conduct their business. You cannot just disrupt other people's business arrangements for any reason at all. Depending upon the circumstances, you open yourself up to claims of tortuous interference. I think there's an argument to be made here that this is exactly what Amazon, Apple, and Google all did.
Section 230 protections doesn't apply here either. It does protect against civil suits, but only for good faith attempts at removing illegal content. It's fair to question whether Parler has done a good enough job in that regard. If not, then the appropriate parties should sue Parler to force it to clean up it's act. But there is nothing inherently illegal about Parler, so there is no reason why these platforms deserve protection for thwarting the many perfectly legitimate users on the platform.
Section 230 protections doesn't apply here either. It does protect against civil suits, but only for good faith attempts at removing illegal content. It's fair to question whether Parler has done a good enough job in that regard. If not, then the appropriate parties should sue Parler to force it to clean up it's act. But there is nothing inherently illegal about Parler, so there is no reason why these platforms deserve protection for thwarting the many perfectly legitimate users on the platform.
Parler signed contracts with AWS, Google, and Amazon. It depends on what is in those contracts. I imagine FAANG has better lawyers than Parler.
It looks like Amazon is likely in violation of it's contract with Parler. The contract requires that Amazon notify Parler of any problems and allow a period of time to correct, which Amazon did not do.
There's a not unreasonable chance that Amazon will lose here.
There's a not unreasonable chance that Amazon will lose here.
> It depends on what is in those contracts.
It does in part, yes.
> I imagine FAANG has better lawyers than Parler.
That is by no means a given.
It does in part, yes.
> I imagine FAANG has better lawyers than Parler.
That is by no means a given.
“Every vendor from text message services to email providers to our lawyers all ditched us too on the same day,” Matze said today on Fox News.”
Yeah, and looking at some background about the company it looks like they were woefully under-prepared.
But I believe that there are plenty of good right-leaning lawyers who would see fighting this kind of thing as an important long-term survival strategy.
But I believe that there are plenty of good right-leaning lawyers who would see fighting this kind of thing as an important long-term survival strategy.
Who gets to be the judge of speech liberties? Perhaps we need a bureau of the government to act in this manner, perhaps a ministry, who's mission is to determine whether words and opinions are true or not.
In this case, I'm actually not so sure free speech was suppressed.
Businesses have free speech rights in addition to individuals.
Let's take a shop owner as an example. This particular shop owner does not support Trump. They have a community notice board on their shop where people can post things.
Of course they are not going to let a Trump supporter post a MAGA sign on that board. It's their business, they can decide whats allowed there and what isn't. Forcing them to display a MAGA sign would be essentially "forced speech" which would also violate their rights.
That doesn't prevent anyone from making MAGA signs or posting them in other places, so the free speech of those people wasn't violated in any way by the shop owner refusing to display their signs.
Therefore I think Amazon, Apple, Google and the other companies shouldn't be forced to convey messages on their platforms they don't agree with, otherwise it's violating their rights.
Businesses have free speech rights in addition to individuals.
Let's take a shop owner as an example. This particular shop owner does not support Trump. They have a community notice board on their shop where people can post things.
Of course they are not going to let a Trump supporter post a MAGA sign on that board. It's their business, they can decide whats allowed there and what isn't. Forcing them to display a MAGA sign would be essentially "forced speech" which would also violate their rights.
That doesn't prevent anyone from making MAGA signs or posting them in other places, so the free speech of those people wasn't violated in any way by the shop owner refusing to display their signs.
Therefore I think Amazon, Apple, Google and the other companies shouldn't be forced to convey messages on their platforms they don't agree with, otherwise it's violating their rights.
I don't think free speech absolutists are accounting for how much having death threats or actually being murdered infringes on one's right to free speech.
Right now I sit in a country that has laws that discriminate against me due to the color of my skin.
If we can't discuss and address it and other sensitive things like it that are evil and are approved-speech by tech then we're doomed as a society, and I'd say we're no better than actual racists, oppressors and slavers from days past.
Moves like this by tech companies only makes it worse and more difficult to discuss this.
I don't know where I'm going with this, but these recent steps taken by tech are incredibly disturbing.
If we can't discuss and address it and other sensitive things like it that are evil and are approved-speech by tech then we're doomed as a society, and I'd say we're no better than actual racists, oppressors and slavers from days past.
Moves like this by tech companies only makes it worse and more difficult to discuss this.
I don't know where I'm going with this, but these recent steps taken by tech are incredibly disturbing.
The problem is there's barely any discussion with these people who are being manipulated, incited to violence, due to the online bubbles they create. This inevitably leads their communities being banished and having to migrate elsewhere - where they can freely speak with whatever hateful, violence provoking or inciting comments they want - and they'll continue to more strongly resonate in their echo chamber until they're incited to violence by someone like Trump et al.
I also don't understand what tech companies are preventing from being discussed? The issue with Parler is they weren't moderating to delete violence inciting commentary - if Parler had done an adequate job of that then the app would still be accessible on those app stores.
More government control leads us more towards a CCP state, whereas the freedom of businesses to be relatively sovereign is a failsafe against potential tyranny - and where people are "voting" for the companies they support the governance of by buying their products, services - allowing them to earn revenues/profit to continue existing; yes, there needs to be even more competition to prevent oligopoly behaviour, and there is policy possible to help with that - especially what's needed is good data and network portability laws so people's online life is easily mobile, as well I believe there needs to be a mechanism that extracts more value from businesses that gain benefit from economies of scale for various reasons.
I also don't understand what tech companies are preventing from being discussed? The issue with Parler is they weren't moderating to delete violence inciting commentary - if Parler had done an adequate job of that then the app would still be accessible on those app stores.
More government control leads us more towards a CCP state, whereas the freedom of businesses to be relatively sovereign is a failsafe against potential tyranny - and where people are "voting" for the companies they support the governance of by buying their products, services - allowing them to earn revenues/profit to continue existing; yes, there needs to be even more competition to prevent oligopoly behaviour, and there is policy possible to help with that - especially what's needed is good data and network portability laws so people's online life is easily mobile, as well I believe there needs to be a mechanism that extracts more value from businesses that gain benefit from economies of scale for various reasons.
> If we can't discuss and address it and other sensitive things like it that are evil and are approved-speech by tech then we're doomed as a society, and I'd say we're no better than actual racists, oppressors and slavers from days past.
Just as a reminder, the deplatformed population was pushing (and the platform was enabling) fighting words - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
Just as a reminder, the deplatformed population was pushing (and the platform was enabling) fighting words - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
Have you read the Post-Chaplinsky section of the article you cite? (Unless you meant to focus on the Canadian/Australian legal meanings). The US Supreme Court has been progressively narrowing what "fighting words" means over the years.
By the way, the "fighting words" decision(like the other oft-favored "fire in a crowded theater" quote) are great ironic examples of what kinds of speech you are looking to suppress - a Jehova's Witness swearing at police, and a protestor against the draft in WWI. You don't need to be imaginative to see how these "reasonable limits to free speech" will be used negatively, you only need to look at what they were created for.
By the way, the "fighting words" decision(like the other oft-favored "fire in a crowded theater" quote) are great ironic examples of what kinds of speech you are looking to suppress - a Jehova's Witness swearing at police, and a protestor against the draft in WWI. You don't need to be imaginative to see how these "reasonable limits to free speech" will be used negatively, you only need to look at what they were created for.
You're right about the narrowing, but that misses the point. Regardless of the narrowing, the fact that the Capitol Insurrection even happened is what gives grounds that the platform does not sufficiently restrict fighting words.
Had Wednesday not happened, there would be no ability to consider the language in scope as such.
Vague threats were made, impressions were that there was no telling whether or not they were serious, and then the insurrection happened.
Had Wednesday not happened, there would be no ability to consider the language in scope as such.
Vague threats were made, impressions were that there was no telling whether or not they were serious, and then the insurrection happened.
There is "fighting words" on both side, unfortunately. We just don't see it because it's in relation to the "accepted" set of opinions. It's part of what's so frustrating for the right right now. E.g. look at the "punch the Nazi" stuff that is apparently A-OK.
Restricting free speech to prevent violence is like trying to keep boiling water in a pot from bubbling over by pressing a lid on it. Will work for a while but speech like the bubbles of boiling water is usually just a symptom of an underlying dynamic. So it won't go away. Worst case scenerio is of course the pot will simply explode at some point.
Every other Western democracy limits free speech by excluding "hate speech", which carries penalties. Maybe one of those definitions makes sense to you as a framework for what you would support in the US.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
This has been abused time after time specially in places like Australia as much as I dislike a lot of things about the states, their stance on free speech is superior to any country. Not only that but what do you think you get by copying and pasting a vague wikipedia article, lol
There is definitely not a good definition for hate speech and it will always be used to destroy dissident though please stop licking the boots of the powerful
The lack of a "hate speech" law is something that makes the US special. The only country with true freedom of speech.
Is it still the ethically right thing to do even if it results in more violence? In my opinion, as a practical matter, near absolute freedom speech is good policy because speech is a buffer between wanting to get your way and doing violence to get your way. An increasingly large swath of American society believes that not only is our democracy corrupt, but they can't say anything about it. What's left? It's not at all obvious to me that taking away someone's ability to effect change through their speech will reduce the likelihood of people coming to harm through violent conflict.
Now, free speech _can_ also be used to spread lies and incite violence, and maybe banning Trump before he had a chance to spread unsubstantiated claims about election fraud would have prevented this recent chaos, but it seems to me that doing it afterwards will increase the chances of violent conflict, at least in the near term. Moreover, the possibility that he might have eventually conceded or placated his supporters is now nil. So, as a consequentialist, I'm dubious of the notion that banning him can be justified on ethical grounds.
Now, free speech _can_ also be used to spread lies and incite violence, and maybe banning Trump before he had a chance to spread unsubstantiated claims about election fraud would have prevented this recent chaos, but it seems to me that doing it afterwards will increase the chances of violent conflict, at least in the near term. Moreover, the possibility that he might have eventually conceded or placated his supporters is now nil. So, as a consequentialist, I'm dubious of the notion that banning him can be justified on ethical grounds.
Amazon included some screenshots of content from Parler that they said violated their ToS. I'd say look at the screenshots they provided then try to justify hosting that content:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
One of the images includes the hashtags #executethemfortreason #deathtotraitors #fuckmikepence. However, you can search #executetrump on twitter right now and find tweets of a similar nature advocating executing trump. Would these tweets on twitter justify a similar reaction from AWS? I realise the example tweet from parler is probably the least bad in the set of offending tweets but it was included nonetheless.
This whole banning of Parler looks like a bad faith exercise where those with different political opinions are held to stricter standards.
This whole banning of Parler looks like a bad faith exercise where those with different political opinions are held to stricter standards.
I'd say, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Maybe there is an argument for banning the opposition, but "They say evil stuff" doesn't seem like a good one to me. In adherence with Godwin's law, I'll point out that very few people actually read Mein Kampf. If more people had, it might not have been such a surprise when Hitler started doing exactly what he said he was going to do. If you want to succeed in suppressing the opposition, anything short of gulags and secret police, (which do work, but obviously have no place in a democracy), is just going to enrage them. History has shown that the best way to change minds is to expose the baddies, not to force them underground to conspire outside the public eye. I could be wrong, but to me it just seems like bad strategy.
you are right. So, either a stupid mistake was made, or..
> I don't believe in free speech without limits.
Freedom of speech with limits is an oxymoron.
Freedom of speech with limits is an oxymoron.
What are your thoughts on the Paradox of tolerance?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
The Paradox of Tolerance is widely used as an excuse to be intolerant.
I have strongly felt that the actions taken by these companies is morally and ethically the right thing to do, for any business and that is inconsistent with believing in true free speech
You feel this way because you agree with their political views. But that's not how free speech works. What if these platforms banned Joe Biden, because they correctly pointed out that he has used his right to free speech before to destroy millions of lives by unleashing a mass incarceration bill, which to this very day disproportionately affects certain racial groups based upon "immutable characteristics of their person" [1]?. Or if they had canceled him over what appear to be highly credible allegations of sexual assault [2]? Would you feel the same way?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcpO329xTGI
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA_Wt22f6gs
You feel this way because you agree with their political views. But that's not how free speech works. What if these platforms banned Joe Biden, because they correctly pointed out that he has used his right to free speech before to destroy millions of lives by unleashing a mass incarceration bill, which to this very day disproportionately affects certain racial groups based upon "immutable characteristics of their person" [1]?. Or if they had canceled him over what appear to be highly credible allegations of sexual assault [2]? Would you feel the same way?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcpO329xTGI
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA_Wt22f6gs
Sure, I don't really like Biden or any of our elected officials on the right or left.
i would say what you have outlined is consistent with “free speech”. germany, for instance, has very high freedoms while still restricting membership in nazi parties, displaying nazi iconography, publishing...etc.
i think if the line is delineated legally, explicitly, clearly that this restriction adds freedoms to those who would be restricted were free speech absolute and the screams of the intolerant drowned out their pleas for survival.
i think the perception this does not qualify as free speech because it is not absolutely free in a libertarian sense (i can say literally whatever sequence of things i can imagine, i can transmit literally any sequence of bits, i can portray literally anything in film/video games) is a strange and mostly american one.
to be clear: i agree free speech is important and am not particularly arguing against it in the american context here either—one thing that i think is better in sum in american is the high degree of press freedom due to america’s extremely high legal standard for libel. i just wanted to comment on the sociological phenomenon i see where there is “free speech” and “this other thing where it is free speech as most other places would recognize it”.
this is just one of the things makes america peculiar, in a special sense. blessing and a curse, and in total i think the lumps are worth the rest of the pudding.
i think if the line is delineated legally, explicitly, clearly that this restriction adds freedoms to those who would be restricted were free speech absolute and the screams of the intolerant drowned out their pleas for survival.
i think the perception this does not qualify as free speech because it is not absolutely free in a libertarian sense (i can say literally whatever sequence of things i can imagine, i can transmit literally any sequence of bits, i can portray literally anything in film/video games) is a strange and mostly american one.
to be clear: i agree free speech is important and am not particularly arguing against it in the american context here either—one thing that i think is better in sum in american is the high degree of press freedom due to america’s extremely high legal standard for libel. i just wanted to comment on the sociological phenomenon i see where there is “free speech” and “this other thing where it is free speech as most other places would recognize it”.
this is just one of the things makes america peculiar, in a special sense. blessing and a curse, and in total i think the lumps are worth the rest of the pudding.
Germany is a special case. Recognizing that exceptions to freedom of speech are problematic and can lead to slippery slopes, Germany considers its history to show that they are unable to handle and restrain Nazism under the usual democratic processes.
(Whether this particularity has expired is a separate question.)
(Whether this particularity has expired is a separate question.)
Agreed. Data and network portability is important policy that must be passed as a means to "vote" of disapproval of governance by a platform by being able to easily move yourself off of it.
It's naive to think that like-minded people won't find an online place to rally, and then eventually rally in person when they feel necessary or are incited ton do so - in this case the ongoing coup attempt is based on lies. It's a futile effort to try to suppress them, they will just gather elsewhere and the deplatforming will be a justification in their mind that they're being persecuted, as the digital/speech will inevitably manifest into the physical where the confrontation can't be avoided.
I do see the deplatforming akin to parents attempting to teach a child their behaviour isn't acceptable, the problem is these children aren't understanding that - and they're adults now without anyone reasonable that they look up to or listen to as a good role model; they've listened to Trump et al who are pushing the false narrative of election fraud, so they will feel justified in violent actions.
It's naive to think that like-minded people won't find an online place to rally, and then eventually rally in person when they feel necessary or are incited ton do so - in this case the ongoing coup attempt is based on lies. It's a futile effort to try to suppress them, they will just gather elsewhere and the deplatforming will be a justification in their mind that they're being persecuted, as the digital/speech will inevitably manifest into the physical where the confrontation can't be avoided.
I do see the deplatforming akin to parents attempting to teach a child their behaviour isn't acceptable, the problem is these children aren't understanding that - and they're adults now without anyone reasonable that they look up to or listen to as a good role model; they've listened to Trump et al who are pushing the false narrative of election fraud, so they will feel justified in violent actions.
I think you can still believe in free speech as defined by the 1st amendment and still conclude that these companies acted ethically.
Trump and his troglodytes have other ways to reachbtheir audience. They have not bee prevented by the force of law from saying what they want to say. The 1st amendment doesn't apply to private companies and nor does it guarantee a platform. There were platforms back when it was formulated (newspapers). So, i don't think it is a case of "platforms did not exist so the 1st amendment could not account for them"
> My line for free speech seems to lie in speech that incites violence or speech that discriminates against people for immutable characteristics of their person, both of which I know Parler harbors in abundance
Which Amazon, Facebook and Twitter also do "in abundance". I can give a list of links which show direct violations of their violence policy, discriminating religion, people et all and it has been happening for years and yet no action as been taken. But does it matter if I give you such a list? It doesn't matter. Why? Because it is taken for granted that all venomous stuff that you find online is coming from the Right Wing/Alt Right/Trumpists etc. There is nothing that Left can do wrong.
Since this is the notion that I find most left liberals employ there is no way to come to a common ground in such scenarios. Unless you are willing to accept that there is venom on the left wing too there is no way I will agree to your point. If you feel Parler harbors hate in abundance you will be shocked to see the kind of hate I have found on Amazon, Twitter and Facebook spewed by the left. If you want to address the issue you should take a holistic approach of condemning it in all platforms and not single out one platform. Only then I can take your argument seriously. But the question is: Can you do it?
Which Amazon, Facebook and Twitter also do "in abundance". I can give a list of links which show direct violations of their violence policy, discriminating religion, people et all and it has been happening for years and yet no action as been taken. But does it matter if I give you such a list? It doesn't matter. Why? Because it is taken for granted that all venomous stuff that you find online is coming from the Right Wing/Alt Right/Trumpists etc. There is nothing that Left can do wrong.
Since this is the notion that I find most left liberals employ there is no way to come to a common ground in such scenarios. Unless you are willing to accept that there is venom on the left wing too there is no way I will agree to your point. If you feel Parler harbors hate in abundance you will be shocked to see the kind of hate I have found on Amazon, Twitter and Facebook spewed by the left. If you want to address the issue you should take a holistic approach of condemning it in all platforms and not single out one platform. Only then I can take your argument seriously. But the question is: Can you do it?
Insofar as freedom of speech is "a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction", it cannot BE limitless.
Just like every freedom, it must be limited by others' freedoms. As the saying goes "your freedom to swing your fists ends at my nose." So it is with speech. You should be able to speak your mind, but if that speech causes someone else harm, then that person's right not to be harmed must be weighed against your right to speak.
Maybe we shouldn't allow private entities like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, etc decide where those boundaries are. I don't think capitalism is a good fit in this case.
Just like every freedom, it must be limited by others' freedoms. As the saying goes "your freedom to swing your fists ends at my nose." So it is with speech. You should be able to speak your mind, but if that speech causes someone else harm, then that person's right not to be harmed must be weighed against your right to speak.
Maybe we shouldn't allow private entities like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, etc decide where those boundaries are. I don't think capitalism is a good fit in this case.
I gave you an up vote for your honesty (and do appreciate it).
I've been suggesting this since before all this went down: many left of center folks don't actually believe in free speech; only "correct" speech.
What makes me really nervous is historically, leftist governments have much higher body counts than right wing governments. These types of governments have the commonality that they tightly control speech and thought.
This is all personal as a relative in my wife's side of the family spent half his life in the gulag for having the audacity to suggest Stalin was not a good guy to his drinking buddies (who turns out are the ones that reported him).
If you're on the left (or right), please do some soul searching on this topic. Also consider that it might not be your guy/gal/party who decides what speech is appropriate (and it's a constantly moving target). And in the age of the internet archive, anything you've written in the past is/will be open season. That's pretty scary, at least for me.
I've been suggesting this since before all this went down: many left of center folks don't actually believe in free speech; only "correct" speech.
What makes me really nervous is historically, leftist governments have much higher body counts than right wing governments. These types of governments have the commonality that they tightly control speech and thought.
This is all personal as a relative in my wife's side of the family spent half his life in the gulag for having the audacity to suggest Stalin was not a good guy to his drinking buddies (who turns out are the ones that reported him).
If you're on the left (or right), please do some soul searching on this topic. Also consider that it might not be your guy/gal/party who decides what speech is appropriate (and it's a constantly moving target). And in the age of the internet archive, anything you've written in the past is/will be open season. That's pretty scary, at least for me.
I can partially understand this, as my family is from ex-USSR country (also went through repressions on one side) and we all shudder at the mentions of 'socialism' and 'communism' too. However it doesn't take a lot of research to realise that the modern Western understanding of those terms and actual things that the modern socialists want are in no way comparable to the realities of mid-20th century. In USSR socialist and communist ideas were subverted to facilitate repressions and totalitarian society. Modern socialism is basically Sweden or Denmark - no gulag there.
The conversation is about restricting speech in America, not free healthcare.
There is long history of extreme right wing trying to make people think that communist and "anyone more left them me" are the same.
Already in Germany before WWII Hitler used that to his advantage where he worked hard enough to make "Jew", "communist" and "social democrat" into synonyms. Meanwhile, social democrats were the biggest party that was openly pro-democracy. Other major party were anti-democracy.
The distinction is not between modern and old "socialism" like Sweden or Denmark. The distinction is whether you buy the "anyone not exactly right with is basically communist" framing.
Already in Germany before WWII Hitler used that to his advantage where he worked hard enough to make "Jew", "communist" and "social democrat" into synonyms. Meanwhile, social democrats were the biggest party that was openly pro-democracy. Other major party were anti-democracy.
The distinction is not between modern and old "socialism" like Sweden or Denmark. The distinction is whether you buy the "anyone not exactly right with is basically communist" framing.
[deleted]
So do you want to Forbid News reporting on Cop violonece too, because it can result in violent Protests? What about school shootings. Reporting on that can convince others to do it too.
A thought experiment to test the du jour premise in extreme:
Scenario: US is at war abroad. Government officials, military, and pro-war political wing is using social networks to rally the nation, urge continued fighting, etc.
Tech companies' leadership, being pacifist and against war, decide to deplatform the war party all together. Attempts to establish alternative means of mass communication by pro-war party (and the government!) are blocked as even Cloud Providers ban them.
My conclusion (ymmv) running above in my head: national security trumps private property considerations, and those suggesting private capital operating mass communication networks and system, can behave as they please are wrong.
[p.s. What happens to Pentagon and JEDI and MS cloud, if Microsoft leadership turns pacifists in middle of a war? "Private company" can do as it pleases? The premise is ludicrous when state interests are concerned.]
--
Deplatforming a sitting POTUS before constitutional means (impeachment|25th) have legally removed him from office is technically an element of a coup. Two basic things happen in coups: control of mass media, and military brass ignoring chain of command.
For the record, IMHO, there is no way FANGs would dare this if they did not have a greenlight from Pentagon and the Alphabet soup agencies.
Scenario: US is at war abroad. Government officials, military, and pro-war political wing is using social networks to rally the nation, urge continued fighting, etc.
Tech companies' leadership, being pacifist and against war, decide to deplatform the war party all together. Attempts to establish alternative means of mass communication by pro-war party (and the government!) are blocked as even Cloud Providers ban them.
My conclusion (ymmv) running above in my head: national security trumps private property considerations, and those suggesting private capital operating mass communication networks and system, can behave as they please are wrong.
[p.s. What happens to Pentagon and JEDI and MS cloud, if Microsoft leadership turns pacifists in middle of a war? "Private company" can do as it pleases? The premise is ludicrous when state interests are concerned.]
--
Deplatforming a sitting POTUS before constitutional means (impeachment|25th) have legally removed him from office is technically an element of a coup. Two basic things happen in coups: control of mass media, and military brass ignoring chain of command.
For the record, IMHO, there is no way FANGs would dare this if they did not have a greenlight from Pentagon and the Alphabet soup agencies.
It must feel pretty surreal to be someone that is constantly moving to different communication apps and instantly finding them pulled by anyone and everyone.
We've seen an escalation of this from higher-level platforms (obviously Twitter can ban an account if they desire) to medium-level platforms (I suppose Apple gets to pick what I can do on my own phone even if it feels a bit wrong), but I'm curious if this will also escalate to low-level platforms (will hosting companies, registrars, or even ISPs start taking similar actions on a regular basis?).
At this point it appears to be in a bit of a feedback loop as well, since it's obvious that deplatforming groups will make them feel persecuted and even more upset, which then makes them more likely to be deplatformed by whichever platform they move to next.
Could this escalate even past low-level companies and result in decentralized, uncensorable, and end-to-end encrypted technologies having action taken against them (as more users, including some that are radicalized, seek them out)? I certainly hope not, but I have no faith in our government's various administrations here to begin with, especially given that we are likely only at the beginning of these types of conflicts.
(Obligatory note that I am not defending any given platform, group of people, or anything of that matter, as I find it much more interesting to talk about how systems like this may play out instead)
We've seen an escalation of this from higher-level platforms (obviously Twitter can ban an account if they desire) to medium-level platforms (I suppose Apple gets to pick what I can do on my own phone even if it feels a bit wrong), but I'm curious if this will also escalate to low-level platforms (will hosting companies, registrars, or even ISPs start taking similar actions on a regular basis?).
At this point it appears to be in a bit of a feedback loop as well, since it's obvious that deplatforming groups will make them feel persecuted and even more upset, which then makes them more likely to be deplatformed by whichever platform they move to next.
Could this escalate even past low-level companies and result in decentralized, uncensorable, and end-to-end encrypted technologies having action taken against them (as more users, including some that are radicalized, seek them out)? I certainly hope not, but I have no faith in our government's various administrations here to begin with, especially given that we are likely only at the beginning of these types of conflicts.
(Obligatory note that I am not defending any given platform, group of people, or anything of that matter, as I find it much more interesting to talk about how systems like this may play out instead)
While so many comments are applauding this move to me this entire deal has been a massive wake up call. I always knew in the back of my head, but now it is right in front of me just how much power these tech platforms have. It's not about Parler (have never used it). Or any of the specific people banned. Just the fact that we have had a president addicted to social media shows how bad things have become.
For me, it's time to unsubscribe. It's not like they have brought me great benefit anyways, if anything the opposite. I wonder if any others will come to the same conclusion.
For me, it's time to unsubscribe. It's not like they have brought me great benefit anyways, if anything the opposite. I wonder if any others will come to the same conclusion.
I concluded the same and finally closed out my accounts and ended any subscriptions. I just can’t help feeling repulsed while using these creations. I found them cool enough to work on back in the day, but what’s the point anymore. Why does the site people use to talk to their friends have to become a tool for social control. Anybody trying to use the internet this way, please back off.
I feel the same, and TBH this site really isn't much better. It's a groupthink incubator just like Twitter and Facebook, and though I've only been here less than 12 hours I regret signing up.
If you’ve been here 12 hours you probably haven’t gotten the chance to participate much in an actual tech discussion. This weekend has been all political in nature.
During the week when more people are working, more tech focused news/projects tend to be shared and discussed.
Give it another week and then decide if it’s all groupthink.
During the week when more people are working, more tech focused news/projects tend to be shared and discussed.
Give it another week and then decide if it’s all groupthink.
I've browsed here before but only just registered to participate in discussions on this topic. I've seen far more nuanced discussions and sincere consideration of both sides on HN than most other platforms.
I still find it alarming that so many people perceive these actions as sincere attempts at harm-reduction. Regardless, it is a pleasant to see both sides being represented in the discussion.
I still find it alarming that so many people perceive these actions as sincere attempts at harm-reduction. Regardless, it is a pleasant to see both sides being represented in the discussion.
The user you’re replying to was banned for creating an account to troll. I wouldn’t consider their comment in good faith.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25711525
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25711525
I have been here for a few years, there are definitely some areas of groupthink. HN knows it's tech, but it's politics aren't generally as well thought through.
A large portion of tech audiences fall into major Dunning-Kreuger traps. Because they understand something to an expert level they feel they can apply that to other ares ignoring the experts already in that field and their current findings. Combine that with a certain segment being pre-disposed to ESR style feelings and it all eventually turns into ./, a cesspool of trolls and people too high on their own supply to even recognize they've gone off the rails.
> A large portion of tech audiences fall into major Dunning-Kreuger[sic] traps. Because they understand something to an expert level
Which is in itself the Dunning-Kruger effect. A tiny minority of people actually have expert level understanding and knowledge. The vast majority of people who think they have expert level understanding just fail to recognise how large their field actually is.
You can be considered a subject-matter expert for recruitment and employment purposes, and it still never be close to the truth. For most practical business purposes it will be true, but it still wont be the reality.
I didn't recognise that distinction until after I had 12 years experience in my field, and met someone who absolutely blew my mind with their level of knowledge and understanding (and declared themselves to be a subject-matter noob).
Which is in itself the Dunning-Kruger effect. A tiny minority of people actually have expert level understanding and knowledge. The vast majority of people who think they have expert level understanding just fail to recognise how large their field actually is.
You can be considered a subject-matter expert for recruitment and employment purposes, and it still never be close to the truth. For most practical business purposes it will be true, but it still wont be the reality.
I didn't recognise that distinction until after I had 12 years experience in my field, and met someone who absolutely blew my mind with their level of knowledge and understanding (and declared themselves to be a subject-matter noob).
It really depends on your definition of expert. The 2nd best in the world can sometimes be a dunce compared to the 1st.
For all intents and purposes, he's still an expert to everyone else.
I think the line between expert and imposter syndrome is closer and more context based than people realise.
For all intents and purposes, he's still an expert to everyone else.
I think the line between expert and imposter syndrome is closer and more context based than people realise.
You really think there’s no one here who has studied law, politics, philosophy or history? Not everyone here is a big tech engineer. Not everything is black and white.
Couple this also with the Gell-Mann amnesia affect and it makes it that much more difficult to filter information as every source will need to be deeply investigated unto it's root.
The only option seems to be copious and wide reading of data yourself, and then applying that to your own life, while ensuring you provide a veneer that passes muster to those physically around you, unwilling to do the same, and at odds with your personal conclusion.
Easier said than done, when a large portion of your time is spent taking care of mundane work/family matters.
This breakage in trust of the 'common good' by 'experts' in their field - leaders, law enforcement, health, merchants, ensures that the path of least resistance is the "blind belief" in local leadership and their chosen 'expert' supporters.
The only option seems to be copious and wide reading of data yourself, and then applying that to your own life, while ensuring you provide a veneer that passes muster to those physically around you, unwilling to do the same, and at odds with your personal conclusion.
Easier said than done, when a large portion of your time is spent taking care of mundane work/family matters.
This breakage in trust of the 'common good' by 'experts' in their field - leaders, law enforcement, health, merchants, ensures that the path of least resistance is the "blind belief" in local leadership and their chosen 'expert' supporters.
You cannot judge a community after just half a day of participation, much less in times of turmoil.
From all the networks I participated in, HN is by far most quality-oriented and while the balance of political opinion is different from US average, there is neither mob rule nor cancel culture rampant.
From all the networks I participated in, HN is by far most quality-oriented and while the balance of political opinion is different from US average, there is neither mob rule nor cancel culture rampant.
Like any community, it grows and changes. You should give it a chance. Political discussions are not the norm, and if you’re interested in tech, this place can expose and involve you in really thought provoking discussions on myriad topics.
And that’s from someone who got fed up, left for a few years, then returned.
Edit: just don’t tell any jokes. Take that to Reddit :D
And that’s from someone who got fed up, left for a few years, then returned.
Edit: just don’t tell any jokes. Take that to Reddit :D
I've been here for a bit, just reading but I registered just to suggest you give the site a chance. Personally I feel political topics are often quite slanted towards one side of the argument, however one of the first posts on p1 is exactly why I do read them; a guy convinced of something beginning to doubt those beliefs and then going in discussion with people. I've found quite a lot of thoughtful discussion here and in general I'd say HN is a good broad source of interesting topics. Give it a chance.
I guess there is something unique to social media. If someone is using its own website + bbs (hosted on its own sever) to communicate those messages, I am not sure what the tech companies can do.
In theory, Apple + Google + Microsoft can ban the website at the OS level, so nobody can really access those messages. Technically, they can do this to Parler now.
In theory, Apple + Google + Microsoft can ban the website at the OS level, so nobody can really access those messages. Technically, they can do this to Parler now.
ISPs and telecoms can ban you. Banks can ban you from having a bank account. Visa can ban you from transacting on their network. These things are already happening.
You can build your own website, but you can't build your own internet. You can't build your own banking system.
You can build your own website, but you can't build your own internet. You can't build your own banking system.
I disagree with your last paragraph. Crypto is basically it's own banking system and while you can't build your own internet you'll always be able to run your own (often encrypted) protocol on top of it (IPSF etc) the existing one.
It's more about the web than the internet really. The web can be unfree quite easily. Unless we go full China and implement a Great Firewall other protocols can always exist on the net.
It's more about the web than the internet really. The web can be unfree quite easily. Unless we go full China and implement a Great Firewall other protocols can always exist on the net.
Crypto is its own banking system but going from fiat to crypto falls within the current banking system, unless you're willing to buy crypto with bundles of cash and risk getting mugged.
Not true. We can hijack the banking system using Bisq.
https://bisq.network/
Suppored payment methods:
It's so funny. Whenever people say you can't do X with crypto, there is always something they don't know about that proves them wrong.
https://bisq.network/
Suppored payment methods:
Advanced Cash
AliPay
Cash Deposit
Chase QuickPay
Face to face (in-person)
Faster Payments
HalCash
Interac e-Transfer
Japan Zengin Furikomi
MoneyBeam (N26)
MoneyGram
National bank transfer
Perfect Money
Popmoney
PromptPay
Revolut
SEPA
SEPA Instant
Swish
Transfer with same bank
Transfer with specific banks
Uphold
US Postal Money Order
WeChat Pay
Western Union
Zelle
It's so funny. Whenever people say you can't do X with crypto, there is always something they don't know about that proves them wrong.
[deleted]
Thanks, I haven't heard of this.
> unless you're willing to buy crypto with bundles of cash and risk getting mugged
I'm trying not to fall into a "Survivorship bias" here but I made 10s if not 100s of trades on LocalBitcoin years ago without issue. I wasn't meeting at people's houses or in some dark alley, I was in the Kroger (grocery store) parking lot or even inside Kroger or the Mall. I don't disagree with your point that fiat->crypto is not as easy as some people pretend it is but I just wanted to push back a little bit on the second part of your statement.
I'm trying not to fall into a "Survivorship bias" here but I made 10s if not 100s of trades on LocalBitcoin years ago without issue. I wasn't meeting at people's houses or in some dark alley, I was in the Kroger (grocery store) parking lot or even inside Kroger or the Mall. I don't disagree with your point that fiat->crypto is not as easy as some people pretend it is but I just wanted to push back a little bit on the second part of your statement.
Crypto exists only because the central banks allow them to.
I don't see how so. If people were banned from buying crypto by banks it would just instead go through middlemen.
They could build those things if they built their own society, which is what I fear the right will try to do one way or another. And I think our options are to split the country and manifest the divide early or wait for some sort of civil conflict.
There’s no practical or ideological need to create a separate society—or really a separate anything—simply because of a difference in political opinion. The left and right are technically in agreement on a huge number of issues and could easily compromise on many others. There has always been room for these discussions within civil society.
A major issue seems to be literal lies and disinformation spreading over social media which makes that divide appear to be much greater than it actually is. If these blatant lies can be prevented then the left and right will have a much easier time coming to political compromises when running the country. Having shared primary ballots would also help a lot to prevent the most radical wings of each party from dominating, because then each party’s candidate would have to appeal to all voters rather than their own.
A major issue seems to be literal lies and disinformation spreading over social media which makes that divide appear to be much greater than it actually is. If these blatant lies can be prevented then the left and right will have a much easier time coming to political compromises when running the country. Having shared primary ballots would also help a lot to prevent the most radical wings of each party from dominating, because then each party’s candidate would have to appeal to all voters rather than their own.
I agree that the amount of "blatant lies" adhered to by large chunks of American citizens is causing/exacerbating our socio-political issues. But I also agree that changing social media is probably not enough. American politics has become an arms race of increasingly polarizing ideologies none of which are particularly appealing/helpful to normal people.
Shared primary ballots is a good start, but it seems like the most meaningful change to our political system would be implementing a system of ranked voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting). Among other things, that would help break the two-party nightmare cased by first-past-the-post voting.
Shared primary ballots is a good start, but it seems like the most meaningful change to our political system would be implementing a system of ranked voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting). Among other things, that would help break the two-party nightmare cased by first-past-the-post voting.
https://electionscience.org/
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/elections/approval_voting_lwv...
St. Louis in November passed approval voting. ( https://electionscience.org/press-releases/diverse-coalition... )
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/elections/approval_voting_lwv...
St. Louis in November passed approval voting. ( https://electionscience.org/press-releases/diverse-coalition... )
The practical reason is that people are extremely agitated and even if they're a fraction of the country that's still enough people for civil conflict. I think you're being a little dismissive of the fact that people are emotionally engaged and FAANG taking down parler is not only further agitating angry people but drawing more people, especially those of whom who hate and distrust "big tech", into the political divide. This isn't a knock against their decision to decouple themselves from parler, but just an observation that these actions are making people angrier than they already were. When you have two spouses who hate each others' guts and haven't been able to stand each other for years, with no improvement in sight, divorce is probably the right decision.
I think the lies and conspiracies are just a manifestation or side effect of the social and political divide. Its like imagining someone you already hate. "They're plotting against me", "they're going to get me", "they probably spilled that milk on purpose to piss me off", etc. And I think there is some substance to the hate, not to the conspiracy, but I see that our society has gotten to this point for real reasons and disagreements that can't be compromised on
edit: typos
I think the lies and conspiracies are just a manifestation or side effect of the social and political divide. Its like imagining someone you already hate. "They're plotting against me", "they're going to get me", "they probably spilled that milk on purpose to piss me off", etc. And I think there is some substance to the hate, not to the conspiracy, but I see that our society has gotten to this point for real reasons and disagreements that can't be compromised on
edit: typos
> especially those of whom who hate and distrust "big tech"
Does anyone actually trust big tech at this stage? I thought it was just a case of how much you distrust them.
Does anyone actually trust big tech at this stage? I thought it was just a case of how much you distrust them.
Genuine question:
You say you fear they’ll do so, but if they’re being forced out of society — what choice do they have but to build their own?
You say you fear they’ll do so, but if they’re being forced out of society — what choice do they have but to build their own?
The problem isn't that they have to build their own, to me it's clear they want to. The problem is that they feel they're being shut down or invaded or whatever, when they attempt to build their own services and communities. Their responses has been to double down and create even broader spaces going from small groups to alternative social media, and I think, eventually an alternate society and political system. At that point the legitimacy of the US government will be challenged, and that's already beginning to happen, and we may have a civil conflict.
They've been creating smaller more exclusive communities for years. They have their own youtube news and fan/media channels, they have their own internet personalities and figureheads even among the mainstream (like dr disrespect, who seemed to be popular with right-leaning gamers I know), they tend to congregate in various indie games (especially war and FPS games), they have their own forums and online spaces (e.g. private discords; thedonald reddit clone, alternate subreddits; parler; 4chan, which is older than any of this but decidedly more right wing nowadays than I remember 10 years ago), and so forth. The problem is that they feel these spaces and communities are under attack. Parler, while I don't disagree with the right of FAANG companies to decouple from parler, is just the latest space that's "under attack".
This isn't unique to Parler, I've seen the right complain about this in gaming, movies and comics (like Star Wars), tabletop games, etc. for years and I know people who were otherwise apolitical but shifted to the right because they felt their hobbies and fanbases were being (unfairly) criticized and changed by outsiders specifically from the left-wing who don't appreciate the original characteristics. And I even agree to some degree that it's hard to have your own space without being attacked. For example, recently I am somewhat aware that Hololive idols, basically asian/japanese game and lifestyle streamers using 3D avatars, have been under (what I think is) undue scrutiny from some feminists for being sexist, pandering to pedophiles, and fueling misogyny. I've seen similar attacks on anime and on some games. Personally I think there's more of a racial element, given western phobia towards asians, in a lot of these attacks and criticisms because extra criticism seem to be targeted at japanese or asian media, but in any case, people on the right think it's mostly political and the political divide has not only worsened it's caused people to take sides and move from a localized feuds (fighting over media like anime and Star Wars) to a broader battle (politics, values, belief systems). And as far as I've observed, this tracks with their attempts and successes at creating increasingly broader alternative platforms. From having their own spaces within larger communities to creating alternative platforms, like parler, or hijacking sites like 4chan, and actually making them viable, unlike earlier attempts (like voat). As of January 6 I think we've come to the point where enough people have aligned politically on the right that they're going to want their own real world society, and not just an online one. Shutting down parler is just going to accelerate the sentiment imo, because as far as I've seen people kind of quantize their world views when (they believe) they're under attack, and group up. They don't become more understanding and broader minded, they become more tribal.
So if the right wants their own society just let them have it before internet fights become real ones. Personally I think it's still a small amount of people, my experiences are just anecdotal based on what I've seen in communities I was part of and people I know, but I think the sentiment is growing rapidly and trying to shut things down isn't working, at best it's a roadblock that pushes problems down the road, at worst it makes people go underground and become more competent at hiding in plain sight.
edit: My fear in particular is that they'll resort to wide scale political, maybe racial, violence. Not that they want right-wing spaces. I'm asian, a lot of us already kind of self-segregate and I don't see any issue with it to be frank. I know integration is important in the US but I don't see a problem with people wanting their own safe space where they're left alone, although it's sad it's come to the point where people attack the capitol.
They've been creating smaller more exclusive communities for years. They have their own youtube news and fan/media channels, they have their own internet personalities and figureheads even among the mainstream (like dr disrespect, who seemed to be popular with right-leaning gamers I know), they tend to congregate in various indie games (especially war and FPS games), they have their own forums and online spaces (e.g. private discords; thedonald reddit clone, alternate subreddits; parler; 4chan, which is older than any of this but decidedly more right wing nowadays than I remember 10 years ago), and so forth. The problem is that they feel these spaces and communities are under attack. Parler, while I don't disagree with the right of FAANG companies to decouple from parler, is just the latest space that's "under attack".
This isn't unique to Parler, I've seen the right complain about this in gaming, movies and comics (like Star Wars), tabletop games, etc. for years and I know people who were otherwise apolitical but shifted to the right because they felt their hobbies and fanbases were being (unfairly) criticized and changed by outsiders specifically from the left-wing who don't appreciate the original characteristics. And I even agree to some degree that it's hard to have your own space without being attacked. For example, recently I am somewhat aware that Hololive idols, basically asian/japanese game and lifestyle streamers using 3D avatars, have been under (what I think is) undue scrutiny from some feminists for being sexist, pandering to pedophiles, and fueling misogyny. I've seen similar attacks on anime and on some games. Personally I think there's more of a racial element, given western phobia towards asians, in a lot of these attacks and criticisms because extra criticism seem to be targeted at japanese or asian media, but in any case, people on the right think it's mostly political and the political divide has not only worsened it's caused people to take sides and move from a localized feuds (fighting over media like anime and Star Wars) to a broader battle (politics, values, belief systems). And as far as I've observed, this tracks with their attempts and successes at creating increasingly broader alternative platforms. From having their own spaces within larger communities to creating alternative platforms, like parler, or hijacking sites like 4chan, and actually making them viable, unlike earlier attempts (like voat). As of January 6 I think we've come to the point where enough people have aligned politically on the right that they're going to want their own real world society, and not just an online one. Shutting down parler is just going to accelerate the sentiment imo, because as far as I've seen people kind of quantize their world views when (they believe) they're under attack, and group up. They don't become more understanding and broader minded, they become more tribal.
So if the right wants their own society just let them have it before internet fights become real ones. Personally I think it's still a small amount of people, my experiences are just anecdotal based on what I've seen in communities I was part of and people I know, but I think the sentiment is growing rapidly and trying to shut things down isn't working, at best it's a roadblock that pushes problems down the road, at worst it makes people go underground and become more competent at hiding in plain sight.
edit: My fear in particular is that they'll resort to wide scale political, maybe racial, violence. Not that they want right-wing spaces. I'm asian, a lot of us already kind of self-segregate and I don't see any issue with it to be frank. I know integration is important in the US but I don't see a problem with people wanting their own safe space where they're left alone, although it's sad it's come to the point where people attack the capitol.
It's probably impossible for the right-wing to create their own society, because they're geographically and economically mixed in with the rest of the country. The most salient political dividing line is ~800 people per square mile.
Social media platforms already long ago decided not to allow groups such as ISIS to propagandize and organize online. Why would they allow any other terrorist groups? Those calling for the usurpation of democracy through insurrection and violence are equivalent.
>So if the right wants their own society just let them have it before internet fights become real ones.
We've already seen many instances of right-wing terroristic violence in the form of bombings (attempted and successful), mass shootings, etc.; many of these have been organized online in extreme right-wing spaces. It's an easy case to be made that allowing such spaces to proliferate will lead to more violence.
But to equate all right-wing speech with terrorism seems to be succumbing to a self-fulfilling prophecy while at the same time justifying the very actions you're opposing.
If we truly want inclusive political discourse, we need to acknowledge the validity of traditional conservative viewpoints while drawing a clear distinction between those viewpoints and reactionary terroristic violence. With this understanding in mind, newspapers such as the NYTimes have long featured conservative columnists with critical viewpoints. Perhaps such mainstream publications should try harder to do this.
There is plenty of room for intelligent discourse, but hateful attacks (verbal and otherwise), simply have no place in a healthy society.
Social media platforms already long ago decided not to allow groups such as ISIS to propagandize and organize online. Why would they allow any other terrorist groups? Those calling for the usurpation of democracy through insurrection and violence are equivalent.
>So if the right wants their own society just let them have it before internet fights become real ones.
We've already seen many instances of right-wing terroristic violence in the form of bombings (attempted and successful), mass shootings, etc.; many of these have been organized online in extreme right-wing spaces. It's an easy case to be made that allowing such spaces to proliferate will lead to more violence.
But to equate all right-wing speech with terrorism seems to be succumbing to a self-fulfilling prophecy while at the same time justifying the very actions you're opposing.
If we truly want inclusive political discourse, we need to acknowledge the validity of traditional conservative viewpoints while drawing a clear distinction between those viewpoints and reactionary terroristic violence. With this understanding in mind, newspapers such as the NYTimes have long featured conservative columnists with critical viewpoints. Perhaps such mainstream publications should try harder to do this.
There is plenty of room for intelligent discourse, but hateful attacks (verbal and otherwise), simply have no place in a healthy society.
I don't think we necessarily disagree, I just want to address this.
But to equate all right-wing speech with terrorism seems to be succumbing to a self-fulfilling prophecy while at the same time justifying the very actions you're opposing.
I'm not equating it to terrorism, I'm saying that they have indicated they want separate systems and, really, a separate society. If you take right-wing talking points at face value, what we have now is a shaky middle ground, a society wherein the powers that be both reject them and also employ regulations that make it difficult for newcomers to make their own banks, lay internet cables, etc. which is why you see right wing memes about "make your own google, make your own banks, etc". And these aren't new talking points, one of Trump's promises going into his presidency was to get rid of as many regulations as he could in general: financial and economic, environmental, governance, etc. and democrats/the left are usually blamed for loving regulations. So if that's the case, split the country and let them do what they want with their government, from scratch. It's not like I'm saying we should go around and take all their belongings and march them down to Florida or something and leave them like cavemen. I make it sound trivial because I'm not an expert or anything, but for the purposes of this discussion I think it's a better alternative to civil conflict and I don't see how we're going to fix the divide.
If we truly want inclusive political discourse, we need to acknowledge the validity of traditional conservative viewpoints while drawing a clear distinction between those viewpoints and reactionary terroristic violence. With this understanding in mind, newspapers such as the NYTimes have long featured conservative columnists with critical viewpoints. Perhaps such mainstream publications should try harder to do this.
I'm not really disagreeing but I think we're past the point where publications matter. Social media has created this new world where you're able to discover people you didn't even know existed. In the past you might know your neighbors and accordingly, you'd move to a neighborhood that suited your tastes. For example, that's basically what white flight was (I'm trying to be brief, not insensitive), it's real, that's how people act. And they'd remain in their local bubble and only have a vague idea of the rest of the world, neatly summarized by the news. People would get mad at ideas and vague demographics, and occasionally figureheads like politicians and public businessmen.
Now, on "public" social media like twitter, you can find virtually anyone who has a certain belief or is a certain way and just yell at them for existing or thinking a certain way. You and your friends can pick them out for doing something and mob them on social media, dox them and get them fired, and attack every social aspect of their life. This isn't even unique to politics per se, this happened to a woman who made a terrible joke about AIDS and Africa, among many other people for non-political reasons like being accused of crimes or plagiarizing art. And this is in ADDITION to getting mad at ideas and demographics and figureheads. So the divide that used to be vague has been refined to an individual level, and to make things worse people categorize each other and place them into enemy tribes based on beliefs and people they follow on social media. You follow Biden on twitter? You're a "demoncrat" and you're the enemy. If you follow Trump you're a "nazi" and you're the enemy. You liked some youtuber personality that's this way or another and you're automatically a SJW or a white supremacist, etc. It's borderline impossible to escape and you don't even have to be a part of social media anymore, it's become somewhat normalized to pick individuals out for their wrong doings and have an online mob use any means of communication they can, not just the internet, to attack you. You're unfortunately suspected of being the Boston Bomber because some guy saw bad photos and created a psychotic conspiracy that put you in the middle? A literal international mob from around the world is coming to harass your family and make them miserable even though you'd been dead before the event occurred. Now, mobs certainly happened in the past at smaller, local levels, and they did target individuals often to even worse effect (e.g. lynching), but the digital space has made discovery of individuals easier than ever before and made it borderline impossible to hide your presence.
edit: formatting
But to equate all right-wing speech with terrorism seems to be succumbing to a self-fulfilling prophecy while at the same time justifying the very actions you're opposing.
I'm not equating it to terrorism, I'm saying that they have indicated they want separate systems and, really, a separate society. If you take right-wing talking points at face value, what we have now is a shaky middle ground, a society wherein the powers that be both reject them and also employ regulations that make it difficult for newcomers to make their own banks, lay internet cables, etc. which is why you see right wing memes about "make your own google, make your own banks, etc". And these aren't new talking points, one of Trump's promises going into his presidency was to get rid of as many regulations as he could in general: financial and economic, environmental, governance, etc. and democrats/the left are usually blamed for loving regulations. So if that's the case, split the country and let them do what they want with their government, from scratch. It's not like I'm saying we should go around and take all their belongings and march them down to Florida or something and leave them like cavemen. I make it sound trivial because I'm not an expert or anything, but for the purposes of this discussion I think it's a better alternative to civil conflict and I don't see how we're going to fix the divide.
If we truly want inclusive political discourse, we need to acknowledge the validity of traditional conservative viewpoints while drawing a clear distinction between those viewpoints and reactionary terroristic violence. With this understanding in mind, newspapers such as the NYTimes have long featured conservative columnists with critical viewpoints. Perhaps such mainstream publications should try harder to do this.
I'm not really disagreeing but I think we're past the point where publications matter. Social media has created this new world where you're able to discover people you didn't even know existed. In the past you might know your neighbors and accordingly, you'd move to a neighborhood that suited your tastes. For example, that's basically what white flight was (I'm trying to be brief, not insensitive), it's real, that's how people act. And they'd remain in their local bubble and only have a vague idea of the rest of the world, neatly summarized by the news. People would get mad at ideas and vague demographics, and occasionally figureheads like politicians and public businessmen.
Now, on "public" social media like twitter, you can find virtually anyone who has a certain belief or is a certain way and just yell at them for existing or thinking a certain way. You and your friends can pick them out for doing something and mob them on social media, dox them and get them fired, and attack every social aspect of their life. This isn't even unique to politics per se, this happened to a woman who made a terrible joke about AIDS and Africa, among many other people for non-political reasons like being accused of crimes or plagiarizing art. And this is in ADDITION to getting mad at ideas and demographics and figureheads. So the divide that used to be vague has been refined to an individual level, and to make things worse people categorize each other and place them into enemy tribes based on beliefs and people they follow on social media. You follow Biden on twitter? You're a "demoncrat" and you're the enemy. If you follow Trump you're a "nazi" and you're the enemy. You liked some youtuber personality that's this way or another and you're automatically a SJW or a white supremacist, etc. It's borderline impossible to escape and you don't even have to be a part of social media anymore, it's become somewhat normalized to pick individuals out for their wrong doings and have an online mob use any means of communication they can, not just the internet, to attack you. You're unfortunately suspected of being the Boston Bomber because some guy saw bad photos and created a psychotic conspiracy that put you in the middle? A literal international mob from around the world is coming to harass your family and make them miserable even though you'd been dead before the event occurred. Now, mobs certainly happened in the past at smaller, local levels, and they did target individuals often to even worse effect (e.g. lynching), but the digital space has made discovery of individuals easier than ever before and made it borderline impossible to hide your presence.
edit: formatting
btmorex(1)
Correct, Shopify has already banned a couple of Trump-related shops and I can see Visa and MasterCard going one step further and not accepting the transactions coming from Trump-related businesses at all.
This is terrifying. You aren't actually killing your political opponents but just cutting them off from being able to do anything in the modern world.
>ISPs and telecoms can ban you. Banks can ban you from having a bank account. Visa can ban you from transacting on their network. These things are already happening.
It’s important to look at the context around those bans.
The most recent ban from the companies you’ve listed was Visa banning PornHub. They did so because of the amount of underage and non-consentual content on the website.
Yes, companies can ban you in theory, but everything indicates that they do so only in extreme circumstances, like hosting child porn or terrorist content (which is essentially what Parler is being banned for).
It’s important to look at the context around those bans.
The most recent ban from the companies you’ve listed was Visa banning PornHub. They did so because of the amount of underage and non-consentual content on the website.
Yes, companies can ban you in theory, but everything indicates that they do so only in extreme circumstances, like hosting child porn or terrorist content (which is essentially what Parler is being banned for).
> Yes, companies can ban you in theory, but everything indicates that they do so only in extreme circumstances, like hosting child porn or terrorist content
This is very much untrue. Most of the conservatives (including the non-conservative called Donald Trump) banned from the main platforms are further from terrorist content than AOC is.
This is very much untrue. Most of the conservatives (including the non-conservative called Donald Trump) banned from the main platforms are further from terrorist content than AOC is.
Come on bud, you can do better than that.
Not without a lot of effort. Having to go hunt down lists of conservatives and the exact things they got removed for is hours of work. Then it's another hour looking through AOC tweets. Then there's the write-up at the end.
I also align with this general sentiment. A lot of the major tech platforms and media orgs (at least in the US) that are viewed as authorities in the dissemination of information on the internet, seem to be getting pulled into the downward inertia of a partisan culture war, and are abandoning notions of objectivity and policy standards that will help keep a pluralistic society like we live in from becoming more and more biased/fractured.
Perhaps this is all inevitable with the nature of the internet, but I have lost a bit of my faith in our institutions to maintain an environment that highlights our common humanity, even when we disagree.
Perhaps this is all inevitable with the nature of the internet, but I have lost a bit of my faith in our institutions to maintain an environment that highlights our common humanity, even when we disagree.
Many people derive great benefit from being able to organize peaceful protests via social media. Disengagement might be right for you, but I would hazard to guess that a lot of people benefit greatly and tangibly from the existence of platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. Perhaps what we need is better social media, with interests that are more closely aligned with consumers, rather than no social media.
I couldn't agree more! However, I don't think the answer is just unsubscribing. I think the answer is strong strong privacy laws for people.
> Could this escalate even past low-level companies and result in decentralized, uncensorable, and end-to-end encrypted technologies having action taken against them?
Americans drop a loser like a brick. Taking Parler off the app stores seriously de-legitimizes their cause and their celebrity. If you read Apple's language [1] its very clear Apple believes Parler is operating in extremely bad faith, that they either lack the ability to moderate or are only doing so as a temporary token gesture. This means Parler's user demographic will become more and more full of fringe radical elements that scare off the silent majority less radical crowd.
[1]: "Your response also references a moderation plan “for the time being,” which does not meet the ongoing requirements in Guideline 1.2 – Safety – User Generated content"
Americans drop a loser like a brick. Taking Parler off the app stores seriously de-legitimizes their cause and their celebrity. If you read Apple's language [1] its very clear Apple believes Parler is operating in extremely bad faith, that they either lack the ability to moderate or are only doing so as a temporary token gesture. This means Parler's user demographic will become more and more full of fringe radical elements that scare off the silent majority less radical crowd.
[1]: "Your response also references a moderation plan “for the time being,” which does not meet the ongoing requirements in Guideline 1.2 – Safety – User Generated content"
I think the critical component to this conversation that its important to stay focused on is not Apple's removal of Parler, but their continued insistence on maintaining exclusive control over what people install on their devices.
Apple should have the right to control what they distribute through their app store; this is undeniable in my mind. A reasonable, though not as obviously sound, argument could be made that at some level of scope and scale its alright to sell general purpose hardware limited to one operating system which delegates control over executable code to the manufacturer. I believe its also clear that Apple is far past any values of scope and scale where this is reasonable for them, specifically.
No one in these comments is talking about Google. Same thing happened with Fortnite; the conversation is all about Apple. This is a signal that the issue here really isn't their decision to allow or ban specific apps; its the core platform decision to allow or ban application distribution channels.
Apple should have the right to control what they distribute through their app store; this is undeniable in my mind. A reasonable, though not as obviously sound, argument could be made that at some level of scope and scale its alright to sell general purpose hardware limited to one operating system which delegates control over executable code to the manufacturer. I believe its also clear that Apple is far past any values of scope and scale where this is reasonable for them, specifically.
No one in these comments is talking about Google. Same thing happened with Fortnite; the conversation is all about Apple. This is a signal that the issue here really isn't their decision to allow or ban specific apps; its the core platform decision to allow or ban application distribution channels.
I think (but not sure) this thread was combined from multiple separate threads, some of which were only about Apple or Google or Amazon's actions. It seems like several threads with a few hundred comments each disappeared, and this one with 2k comments appeared out of nowhere.
That might explain why it looks like all of the comments are about one or the other.
That might explain why it looks like all of the comments are about one or the other.
It did with at least one thread. I was reading on [0] refreshed and found that all comments were replaced with a message that they’d been moved here.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25708142
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25708142
Yes, I believe that's what happened here. Very poor decision by the mods; the Google/Apple ones make sense to merge, but the AWS one is a very different issue, and could have a far more interesting technical discussion about migration paths.
> their continued insistence on maintaining exclusive control over what people install on their devices
Think of iOS devices like gaming consoles with a GSM chip and you'll have a better analogy.
You can't install your own software on an Xbox, Playstation or Switch without going through some hoops. Neither can you get any random piece of software in their stores without complying with their rules.
It's the exact same thing with iOS.
Think of iOS devices like gaming consoles with a GSM chip and you'll have a better analogy.
You can't install your own software on an Xbox, Playstation or Switch without going through some hoops. Neither can you get any random piece of software in their stores without complying with their rules.
It's the exact same thing with iOS.
There's a big difference between consoles and iPhones.
Firstly, the iPhone is used predominantly as a general purpose computing device, whereas a console is definitely not.
Secondly, pretty much every console has been locked down, whereas it's very new for a GP computing device to be this locked down.
Like, I understand the argument here, but the scale of people using only an iPhone makes it dangerous to give Apple this much power.
Imagine if MS could do this back in the 90s on Windows, would that have been acceptable?
Firstly, the iPhone is used predominantly as a general purpose computing device, whereas a console is definitely not.
Secondly, pretty much every console has been locked down, whereas it's very new for a GP computing device to be this locked down.
Like, I understand the argument here, but the scale of people using only an iPhone makes it dangerous to give Apple this much power.
Imagine if MS could do this back in the 90s on Windows, would that have been acceptable?
> Imagine if MS could do this back in the 90s on Windows, would that have been acceptable?
It was not acceptable and they were forced to display a browser selection pop-up, on a OS that already freely allowed users to install whatever browser they wished.
Contrast this with Apple's iOS, where they somehow get away with not allowing any other browser engine than Safari's Webkit.
It was not acceptable and they were forced to display a browser selection pop-up, on a OS that already freely allowed users to install whatever browser they wished.
Contrast this with Apple's iOS, where they somehow get away with not allowing any other browser engine than Safari's Webkit.
> It was not acceptable and they were forced to display a browser selection pop-up, on a OS that already freely allowed users to install whatever browser they wished.
In Europe. I once tried to uninstall IE in 2005, and it was a complete comedy of errors that lead to me re-installing Windows.
In Europe. I once tried to uninstall IE in 2005, and it was a complete comedy of errors that lead to me re-installing Windows.
I understand this logic but my worry is since smartphones have become the primary computing device for millions of people ("What's a computer?") treating them as closed systems like gaming consoles is a bad approach.
I think what's better for the consumer, and society in general I suppose, is to treat them as general computing devices. Especially as we see them converge with PCs (e.g. tablets with keyboards replacing laptops).
Consider the following: If you had to pick only one, would you replace your PC with a gaming console, or a smartphone? I worry the vast majority of people would choose the smartphone, and as such we would have replaced the open PC culture we have now with a closed, proprietary culture.
I think what's better for the consumer, and society in general I suppose, is to treat them as general computing devices. Especially as we see them converge with PCs (e.g. tablets with keyboards replacing laptops).
Consider the following: If you had to pick only one, would you replace your PC with a gaming console, or a smartphone? I worry the vast majority of people would choose the smartphone, and as such we would have replaced the open PC culture we have now with a closed, proprietary culture.
Game consoles are the exact reason why I included the line about "at some values of scope and scale".
I do feel they're an interesting analogue; they sell hundreds of millions of units, the scale is there, but why do I, if no one else, hold them to a different standard than phones? At the end of the day, I do hold them to a different standard, even if I don't have a fully logical argument for why.
I'm satisfied enough with three reasons, though none represent a fully logical argument.
First, they have very limited scope. Every game console does one thing: play games. Some game consoles do a second thing: watch movies and tv. There are platform features to support those goals (parties, voice chat, friends, etc), but that's effectively it.
In comparison, phones have undefined potential scope. They're used for everything anyone could need computing for, usually only limited by the screen size, input systems, processing power, and in the iPhone's case, Apple's 2010s attitude about what your phone is for.
Second, that limited scope described above is wholly "non-critical infrastructure". I love gaming; definitely more than most people. I have a Series X and a PS5 sitting next to my TV, while I'm typing this on a PC with a RTX 2070. Gaming can lead to some very powerful, life-changing moments for some people, and its been a godsend during this pandemic for many. But, its still Just Gaming.
I would define both Communication and News, among others, as computing scopes which are critical infrastructure; these are both things people use their phones for, and they're both scopes which Apple has a demonstrated history of assaulting on the iPhone.
Third, there's very little conversation from actual stakeholders concerning game consoles changing. I try to keep apprised with the games industry, and by extension how game developers feel about the major platforms; the discussion about Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo opening their platforms simply isn't happening. While they do have final control over what is allowed to be played on each console, even with the physical disc market, there's very few incidents of them abusing that control to restrict distribution of a game that desired distribution on each console. There certainly are games which haven't even attempted approval and would be shut down (steam has many anime porn games like this), but the problem certainly isn't as severe as on iOS (due to the limited scope, combined with specialized development skillset, combined with individual investment necessary to get a game working on each platform, I imagine).
There's a second argument, the Fortnite one, that secondary marketplaces aren't just necessary for freedom of speech, but also for revenue. All of these companies force games to use their IAP frameworks, which I'm sure takes something around 30%. Its definitely strange to me that Epic railed against Apple for the same policies they accept freely on Xbox, PS4, and Switch, and I have a less cogent explanation for this; either (1) they should be fine paying that tax to gain access to the platform, or (2) they shouldn't be, and thus should take issue with every platform exerting that control. Unfortunately, the reality is probably (3) Sony owns 2% of Epic, Epic cuts special deals with every platform, and those deals have kept them happy for now, despite not applying to the majority of game developers, and Apple is actually in the right on this specific issue in never giving special deals.
Its important to remember that the way Apple and Google treat game developers is, frankly, garbage. That previous statement I made about Apple never giving special deals actually isn't true: Amazon uses their own IAP framework for digital purchases on Kindle and Prime Video. Fortnite is definitely the same scale as these use cases, but they couldn't negotiate a special deal. Google allows applications to use whatever IAP framework they want (IIRC), but not Games; Games have to use Google's 30% tax IAP framework. Due to these policies, Google and Apple are both Top 5 "Gaming Companies" by revenue, despite not producing a single game. By comparison, real gaming platform holders (Sony, MS, Nintendo) negotiate all the time, and find middleground that keeps developers happy.
This conversation is, of course, happening every day with iOS. Nearly every app developer has a story about how Apple has slighted them. Most experience a weird review and recover from it. Some don't. Many have similar stories concerning Google and the Play Store, but its a far less interesting narrative because there are alternatives for Android users and developers. In fact, the best selling Android devices come with an alternative store pre-installed (Galaxy), all of the first-party apps on Samsung phones are distributed and updated through there (in other words, its users use it), and you can go download Fortnite there right now.
So, its not the "exact same". Its similar enough to where I keep an open mind, and I'm ready to join the cerebral fight for mindshare if the need for openness in consoles should occur, but I don't feel we're there yet. The first thing I'd need to see is actual game developers rally against a platform; maybe that isn't happening due to fear of retribution, but I think even considering that we'd be hearing anonymous rumblings, and I'm not even hearing that.
I do feel they're an interesting analogue; they sell hundreds of millions of units, the scale is there, but why do I, if no one else, hold them to a different standard than phones? At the end of the day, I do hold them to a different standard, even if I don't have a fully logical argument for why.
I'm satisfied enough with three reasons, though none represent a fully logical argument.
First, they have very limited scope. Every game console does one thing: play games. Some game consoles do a second thing: watch movies and tv. There are platform features to support those goals (parties, voice chat, friends, etc), but that's effectively it.
In comparison, phones have undefined potential scope. They're used for everything anyone could need computing for, usually only limited by the screen size, input systems, processing power, and in the iPhone's case, Apple's 2010s attitude about what your phone is for.
Second, that limited scope described above is wholly "non-critical infrastructure". I love gaming; definitely more than most people. I have a Series X and a PS5 sitting next to my TV, while I'm typing this on a PC with a RTX 2070. Gaming can lead to some very powerful, life-changing moments for some people, and its been a godsend during this pandemic for many. But, its still Just Gaming.
I would define both Communication and News, among others, as computing scopes which are critical infrastructure; these are both things people use their phones for, and they're both scopes which Apple has a demonstrated history of assaulting on the iPhone.
Third, there's very little conversation from actual stakeholders concerning game consoles changing. I try to keep apprised with the games industry, and by extension how game developers feel about the major platforms; the discussion about Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo opening their platforms simply isn't happening. While they do have final control over what is allowed to be played on each console, even with the physical disc market, there's very few incidents of them abusing that control to restrict distribution of a game that desired distribution on each console. There certainly are games which haven't even attempted approval and would be shut down (steam has many anime porn games like this), but the problem certainly isn't as severe as on iOS (due to the limited scope, combined with specialized development skillset, combined with individual investment necessary to get a game working on each platform, I imagine).
There's a second argument, the Fortnite one, that secondary marketplaces aren't just necessary for freedom of speech, but also for revenue. All of these companies force games to use their IAP frameworks, which I'm sure takes something around 30%. Its definitely strange to me that Epic railed against Apple for the same policies they accept freely on Xbox, PS4, and Switch, and I have a less cogent explanation for this; either (1) they should be fine paying that tax to gain access to the platform, or (2) they shouldn't be, and thus should take issue with every platform exerting that control. Unfortunately, the reality is probably (3) Sony owns 2% of Epic, Epic cuts special deals with every platform, and those deals have kept them happy for now, despite not applying to the majority of game developers, and Apple is actually in the right on this specific issue in never giving special deals.
Its important to remember that the way Apple and Google treat game developers is, frankly, garbage. That previous statement I made about Apple never giving special deals actually isn't true: Amazon uses their own IAP framework for digital purchases on Kindle and Prime Video. Fortnite is definitely the same scale as these use cases, but they couldn't negotiate a special deal. Google allows applications to use whatever IAP framework they want (IIRC), but not Games; Games have to use Google's 30% tax IAP framework. Due to these policies, Google and Apple are both Top 5 "Gaming Companies" by revenue, despite not producing a single game. By comparison, real gaming platform holders (Sony, MS, Nintendo) negotiate all the time, and find middleground that keeps developers happy.
This conversation is, of course, happening every day with iOS. Nearly every app developer has a story about how Apple has slighted them. Most experience a weird review and recover from it. Some don't. Many have similar stories concerning Google and the Play Store, but its a far less interesting narrative because there are alternatives for Android users and developers. In fact, the best selling Android devices come with an alternative store pre-installed (Galaxy), all of the first-party apps on Samsung phones are distributed and updated through there (in other words, its users use it), and you can go download Fortnite there right now.
So, its not the "exact same". Its similar enough to where I keep an open mind, and I'm ready to join the cerebral fight for mindshare if the need for openness in consoles should occur, but I don't feel we're there yet. The first thing I'd need to see is actual game developers rally against a platform; maybe that isn't happening due to fear of retribution, but I think even considering that we'd be hearing anonymous rumblings, and I'm not even hearing that.
> I think the critical component to this conversation that its important to stay focused on is not Apple's removal of Parler, but their continued insistence on maintaining exclusive control over what people install on their devices.
This has been going on since the App store first launched. I remember speaking up about this years and years ago. There were two sides, and well, we know which side one: people just accepted that Apple gets to dictate what goes on the iPhone.
So at this point, I have no sympathy for anyone who suddenly realizes: "Hey, what are we doing? What are we allowing?"
Every cheered when Apple prevented Flash from running on the device. And then porn apps. And then cheap "flashlight" apps. Or apps that did nothing except cost $1000 for a JPEG of a red gem. Guess what? This is the end result.
So I always look for sincerity when people propose fighting back against this now. Because now that it affects them, they want a change, but do they really want change, or are they just being selfish. And it's always selfish. People are fighting for their piece of the pie.
The "fuck you, got mine" attitude.
> No one in these comments is talking about Google.
Google I can side load apps freely. Others can operate stores and do this. Google does not have this problem.
This has been going on since the App store first launched. I remember speaking up about this years and years ago. There were two sides, and well, we know which side one: people just accepted that Apple gets to dictate what goes on the iPhone.
So at this point, I have no sympathy for anyone who suddenly realizes: "Hey, what are we doing? What are we allowing?"
Every cheered when Apple prevented Flash from running on the device. And then porn apps. And then cheap "flashlight" apps. Or apps that did nothing except cost $1000 for a JPEG of a red gem. Guess what? This is the end result.
So I always look for sincerity when people propose fighting back against this now. Because now that it affects them, they want a change, but do they really want change, or are they just being selfish. And it's always selfish. People are fighting for their piece of the pie.
The "fuck you, got mine" attitude.
> No one in these comments is talking about Google.
Google I can side load apps freely. Others can operate stores and do this. Google does not have this problem.
> that they either lack the ability to moderate or are only doing so as a temporary token gesture
Considering that Facebook and Twitter can't effectively moderate their platforms (algorithms don't work well and human moderation is too expensive) I doubt Parler could either, even if they wanted to.
Considering that Facebook and Twitter can't effectively moderate their platforms (algorithms don't work well and human moderation is too expensive) I doubt Parler could either, even if they wanted to.
> Considering that Facebook and Twitter can't effectively moderate their platforms
What an odd statement.
If that were true, Parler would have no reason to exist. After all, it's raison d'etre is specifically to allow people to get away from the perceived censorship on the major social media platforms.
What an odd statement.
If that were true, Parler would have no reason to exist. After all, it's raison d'etre is specifically to allow people to get away from the perceived censorship on the major social media platforms.
False negatives are a thing. Getting some moderation done doesn’t mean it’s adequate or accurate.
This is a perfect example of the Nirvana fallacy.
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, etc, etc, all struggle with the issues of content moderation. The perfect example is Facebook pulling down a journalist photo of, if memory serves, a naked girl in a warzone as CP when obviously it was not.
Yup, these systems are imperfect.
But I think it's pretty silly to claim they're completely worthless or ineffective and therefore moderation simply cannot be done, and Parler is therefore off the hook.
Heck, HN has commenting rules/guidelines. Are you suggesting those shouldn't exist and any system to enforce them is pointless?
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, etc, etc, all struggle with the issues of content moderation. The perfect example is Facebook pulling down a journalist photo of, if memory serves, a naked girl in a warzone as CP when obviously it was not.
Yup, these systems are imperfect.
But I think it's pretty silly to claim they're completely worthless or ineffective and therefore moderation simply cannot be done, and Parler is therefore off the hook.
Heck, HN has commenting rules/guidelines. Are you suggesting those shouldn't exist and any system to enforce them is pointless?
It’s not a nirvana fallacy. I’m saying moderation on Facebook is so bad that it should not pretend it’s moderating in any kind of balanced way. It just does the bare minimum to keep regulators away.
It depends entirely on what you consider "effective moderation". Many consider "effective moderation" a purge of everyone who doesn't adhere completely to their cultural orthodoxy. Others think that if a platform so chooses it should be allowed to host any and all voices that don't spam or break any laws. Unfortunately the former are authoritarians who believe they have the right to deprive the latter from making that decision (and they currently hold the reigns of power in Silicon Valley and Washington DC).
> Many consider "effective moderation" a purge of everyone who doesn't adhere completely to their cultural orthodoxy.
This is clearly a strawman argument and frankly such an already polarized statement that I'm not sure there's any point replying.
But, I will say this: I'll bet if Parler simply took threats of violence and incitement on their site seriously and agreed to move to proactively remove that kind of content, they wouldn't be in this position.
Unfortunately, their entire pitch as a platform is to not moderate at all. To that end, their CEO has outright stated they will not moderate their site in any way, and as a result there's some truly scary content on that site from individuals who are literally advocating for the murder of those they view as political enemies.
And if not calling for murder and violence is "cultural orthodoxy", well, I guess I'm pretty orthodox and I'd hope you are, too.
As for Parler, their position on moderation always put them in direct violation of the Amazon/Google/Apple ToS for their various services.
The real mystery is why nothing was done to this point.
This is clearly a strawman argument and frankly such an already polarized statement that I'm not sure there's any point replying.
But, I will say this: I'll bet if Parler simply took threats of violence and incitement on their site seriously and agreed to move to proactively remove that kind of content, they wouldn't be in this position.
Unfortunately, their entire pitch as a platform is to not moderate at all. To that end, their CEO has outright stated they will not moderate their site in any way, and as a result there's some truly scary content on that site from individuals who are literally advocating for the murder of those they view as political enemies.
And if not calling for murder and violence is "cultural orthodoxy", well, I guess I'm pretty orthodox and I'd hope you are, too.
As for Parler, their position on moderation always put them in direct violation of the Amazon/Google/Apple ToS for their various services.
The real mystery is why nothing was done to this point.
>This is clearly a strawman argument and frankly such an already polarized statement that I'm not sure there's any point replying.
Unfortunately objective reality is extremely polarizing in 2021. Calling for murder and violence is illegal and should be prosecuted under the law.
>The real mystery is why nothing was done to this point.
Its no mystery why monopolistic tech giants have moved in unison to silence and censor anyone who opposes the narrative pushed by the ruling elite. Extremely low-information people take this to mean silencing Trump and his ignorant followers. Informed people understand that voices across the political spectrum, from advocates for Palestinian rights to journalists who push back against war propaganda, have been silenced by tech giants at the behest of powerful interests. Fortunately, low-information people who numerically dominate our society and mindlessly bleat the propaganda they have been programmed with have nothing to fear from the new totalitarianism. Until of course they get branded as a "Nazi" by having the wrong friend or the wrong relative, or being at the wrong place at the wrong time, or being flagged by a nameless, faceless algorithm that has been "flawlessly" programmed to seek out "Nazis" and ensure that they aren't able to participate in society. Of course when you are unpersoned by a tech giant, and your bank account is cancelled, and you are put on a no fly list and you are restricted from participating in society in every other way, you can always contact the powers-that-be and easily get the situation cleared up, just like all the people who are summarily banned from Google or Facebook without an explanation, right?
Unfortunately objective reality is extremely polarizing in 2021. Calling for murder and violence is illegal and should be prosecuted under the law.
>The real mystery is why nothing was done to this point.
Its no mystery why monopolistic tech giants have moved in unison to silence and censor anyone who opposes the narrative pushed by the ruling elite. Extremely low-information people take this to mean silencing Trump and his ignorant followers. Informed people understand that voices across the political spectrum, from advocates for Palestinian rights to journalists who push back against war propaganda, have been silenced by tech giants at the behest of powerful interests. Fortunately, low-information people who numerically dominate our society and mindlessly bleat the propaganda they have been programmed with have nothing to fear from the new totalitarianism. Until of course they get branded as a "Nazi" by having the wrong friend or the wrong relative, or being at the wrong place at the wrong time, or being flagged by a nameless, faceless algorithm that has been "flawlessly" programmed to seek out "Nazis" and ensure that they aren't able to participate in society. Of course when you are unpersoned by a tech giant, and your bank account is cancelled, and you are put on a no fly list and you are restricted from participating in society in every other way, you can always contact the powers-that-be and easily get the situation cleared up, just like all the people who are summarily banned from Google or Facebook without an explanation, right?
Actually their moderation stance it to not moderate LEGAL speech, illegal speech has to fail the "True Threat" legal standard which is FAR FAR FAR more limited than what Google, Apple, and Amazon desire, and more than the new standard deployed by twitter recently in the Trump ban, which relies on subjective analysis where by saying things like "American Patriot" are deemed to be "incitement"
Such a standard is on it face politically slanted towards banning conservative/right speech more than left speech
Such a standard is on it face politically slanted towards banning conservative/right speech more than left speech
Okay...
So how would you classify these?
Advocating for killing "commie Democrat traitor politicians":
https://www.reddit.com/gallery/kua9fq
Advocating for bombing Amazon:
https://i.imgur.com/WcwH3F1.jpg
Advocating for attacking Apple stores:
https://i.redd.it/8bcbvebwz6a61.png
Oh, and by the way, that first guy (JuarezTX) has many more posts along those lines.
So, thoughts? Is it more "subjective analysis" to consider these posts to be incitement to violence? Should Parler be removing these?
So how would you classify these?
Advocating for killing "commie Democrat traitor politicians":
https://www.reddit.com/gallery/kua9fq
Advocating for bombing Amazon:
https://i.imgur.com/WcwH3F1.jpg
Advocating for attacking Apple stores:
https://i.redd.it/8bcbvebwz6a61.png
Oh, and by the way, that first guy (JuarezTX) has many more posts along those lines.
So, thoughts? Is it more "subjective analysis" to consider these posts to be incitement to violence? Should Parler be removing these?
This is what one would call "cherry picking" a type of logical fallacy, but I will play for the movement.
Your first link is 404, so I can not comment on it
The second likely would not rise to the level of a "True Threat"
The third I think likely would / should be bannable as that is close enough for me to consider it a True Threat.
Apple's complaint was the Parler was not aggressive enough in removing posts, not that they were not removing posts at all
Apple, Google, and Amazon all have a very clear political bias in their enforcement of their own rules, I am not sure how this could even be debatable anymore.
I can easily cherry pick comments from Twitter, Facebook, etc that have the same or stronger lang around incitement to violence only towards groups like the Police, or other unpopular groups... This level of aggressive enforcement does not seem to be present if the target of the incitement is unpopular
Your first link is 404, so I can not comment on it
The second likely would not rise to the level of a "True Threat"
The third I think likely would / should be bannable as that is close enough for me to consider it a True Threat.
Apple's complaint was the Parler was not aggressive enough in removing posts, not that they were not removing posts at all
Apple, Google, and Amazon all have a very clear political bias in their enforcement of their own rules, I am not sure how this could even be debatable anymore.
I can easily cherry pick comments from Twitter, Facebook, etc that have the same or stronger lang around incitement to violence only towards groups like the Police, or other unpopular groups... This level of aggressive enforcement does not seem to be present if the target of the incitement is unpopular
Reddit seems to be having issues, first link is spitting our server errors right now.
My purpose wasn't to cherry pick, it was to understand what your line is re free/legal speech.
The fact the second one isn't a direct call to action but just an implication, and therefore you think it's fine, is useful information. It tells me that your bar and mine are definitely not the same.
I'll bet you also don't think Trump encouraged the rioting the other day because he didn't explicitly say "hey everyone, riot now!"
Which is of course what makes Trump so effective. Decades of litigation have taught him the artform if plausible deniability. Never say what you want. Imply it and let folks put two and two together
Of course, in the case if Parler, there's no shortage of folks who lack similar instincts and therefore say the quiet part loud...
> I can easily cherry pick comments from Twitter, Facebook, etc that have the same or stronger lang around incitement to violence
The difference is the CEO of Parler has ruled out moderating that kind of content, including the examples I've cited here, whereas every other site removes it.
So the situation simply isn't comparable.
> This level of aggressive enforcement does not seem to be present if the target of the incitement is unpopular
Okay, so where are your examples? I'd be happy to provide my opinion if you'd like.
My purpose wasn't to cherry pick, it was to understand what your line is re free/legal speech.
The fact the second one isn't a direct call to action but just an implication, and therefore you think it's fine, is useful information. It tells me that your bar and mine are definitely not the same.
I'll bet you also don't think Trump encouraged the rioting the other day because he didn't explicitly say "hey everyone, riot now!"
Which is of course what makes Trump so effective. Decades of litigation have taught him the artform if plausible deniability. Never say what you want. Imply it and let folks put two and two together
Of course, in the case if Parler, there's no shortage of folks who lack similar instincts and therefore say the quiet part loud...
> I can easily cherry pick comments from Twitter, Facebook, etc that have the same or stronger lang around incitement to violence
The difference is the CEO of Parler has ruled out moderating that kind of content, including the examples I've cited here, whereas every other site removes it.
So the situation simply isn't comparable.
> This level of aggressive enforcement does not seem to be present if the target of the incitement is unpopular
Okay, so where are your examples? I'd be happy to provide my opinion if you'd like.
>>the fact the second one isn't a direct call to action but
just an implication, and therefore you think it's fine, is useful information. It tells me that your bar and mine are definitely not the same.
I have outlined what my line is, True Threat [1], is a legal standard: "‘True threats’ encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. . . . Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.” [1]
>>I'll bet you also don't think Trump encouraged the rioting the other day because he didn't explicitly say "hey everyone, riot now!"
I dont actively follow Trump's (or any other) twitter feed, I largely view Twitter as a cesspool just like I view Parler and all other Social Media including Facebook, Gab, even Reddit at this point. Mostly because each platform ends up becoming an ideological echo chamber for the most extreme views of their founding ideology, for the major platforms that ends up being left authoritarianism, for many of the alt-tech that ends up being right authoritarianism..
Since I am not authoritarian at all, left or right, those platforms hold little interest for me and I generally avoid those places. So I can not speak to all of Trump's tweets, though I do believe the partisan machine has generally applied the least favorable reading of all his public comments over the last several years and often time claim "dog whistles" far too often to the point where my general position is one of "Boy who cried wolf" when I see these types of comments.
My belief in this was reinforced by twitter's very very weak justification for their permaban [2]. The posts they highlighted in their justification were not something I would consider to be bannable speech
>>whereas every other site removes it.
Which I also explained due to Parler's very different position on what constitutes bannable speech, they take the same position that generally favor i.e all Legal Speech should be allowed, if a person could not be arrested and jailed for the speech then it should be permitted.
Now I have a feeling you also want the law to be changed to the point where people can be jailed more aggressively for their speech not simply be banned from a popular website. One of the reasons I generally oppose popular platforms banned unpopular speech is that fact that the law often follows popular opinion, thus it is popular to ban speech today it will not be long before the overton window shifts where maybe we need to water down the protections of legal speech, to the point where we are tossing people in cages for their unpopular speech.
As a individualist, libertarian advocating for Geo-Libertarian public policies my opinions are often viewed as unpopular, it concerns me that we are attempting to create safe spaces and echo chambers online where no dissenting opinions are welcome, and if you say an unpopular thing you are painted as a racist, bigot, sexist or some other immoral designation. For example I have been called a racist simply because I oppose income based taxation.
>>Okay, so where are your examples?
Just go back to the BLM protests/riots there we all kinds of calls for violence that went unchallenged. Then there is antifa, hell for a time there was popular subculture around "Punch a Nazi" and of-course all conservatives were "Nazi's"
[1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats
[2] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
I have outlined what my line is, True Threat [1], is a legal standard: "‘True threats’ encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. . . . Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.” [1]
>>I'll bet you also don't think Trump encouraged the rioting the other day because he didn't explicitly say "hey everyone, riot now!"
I dont actively follow Trump's (or any other) twitter feed, I largely view Twitter as a cesspool just like I view Parler and all other Social Media including Facebook, Gab, even Reddit at this point. Mostly because each platform ends up becoming an ideological echo chamber for the most extreme views of their founding ideology, for the major platforms that ends up being left authoritarianism, for many of the alt-tech that ends up being right authoritarianism..
Since I am not authoritarian at all, left or right, those platforms hold little interest for me and I generally avoid those places. So I can not speak to all of Trump's tweets, though I do believe the partisan machine has generally applied the least favorable reading of all his public comments over the last several years and often time claim "dog whistles" far too often to the point where my general position is one of "Boy who cried wolf" when I see these types of comments.
My belief in this was reinforced by twitter's very very weak justification for their permaban [2]. The posts they highlighted in their justification were not something I would consider to be bannable speech
>>whereas every other site removes it.
Which I also explained due to Parler's very different position on what constitutes bannable speech, they take the same position that generally favor i.e all Legal Speech should be allowed, if a person could not be arrested and jailed for the speech then it should be permitted.
Now I have a feeling you also want the law to be changed to the point where people can be jailed more aggressively for their speech not simply be banned from a popular website. One of the reasons I generally oppose popular platforms banned unpopular speech is that fact that the law often follows popular opinion, thus it is popular to ban speech today it will not be long before the overton window shifts where maybe we need to water down the protections of legal speech, to the point where we are tossing people in cages for their unpopular speech.
As a individualist, libertarian advocating for Geo-Libertarian public policies my opinions are often viewed as unpopular, it concerns me that we are attempting to create safe spaces and echo chambers online where no dissenting opinions are welcome, and if you say an unpopular thing you are painted as a racist, bigot, sexist or some other immoral designation. For example I have been called a racist simply because I oppose income based taxation.
>>Okay, so where are your examples?
Just go back to the BLM protests/riots there we all kinds of calls for violence that went unchallenged. Then there is antifa, hell for a time there was popular subculture around "Punch a Nazi" and of-course all conservatives were "Nazi's"
[1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats
[2] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
That's because they make money from advertising that they then use to pay for moderators. I doubt most brands would even want to touch Parler with a 10 foot pole.
As much as a wish for there to be no money for them, I honestly doubt it is zero. Traditionally conservative groups (eg NRA, political campaigns, firearm related businesses, ...) would probably find significantly better ROI on marketing budgets spent at parler.
NRA was being funded by Russia, so I guess Parler could give that a try.
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/27/764879242/nra-was-foreign-ass...
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/27/764879242/nra-was-foreign-ass...
... according to a new investigation unveiled Friday by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.
Democrats have called everyone from sitting US presidents to Tulsi Gabbard a "Russian Asset". This is more than likely another false alarm.
What are all these Russian assets meant to be doing anyway? Promoting an excessively calm world peace with strong ties between Russians and Americans? Russia hasn't been a credible threat to the US for 30 years. Nobody is accusing all these assets of actually doing anything. There isn't a path for how Russia is going to take advantage of the US. Anything Russia can do, China can do 3 times over.
The time that they were an appropriate punching bag is long since past.
Democrats have called everyone from sitting US presidents to Tulsi Gabbard a "Russian Asset". This is more than likely another false alarm.
What are all these Russian assets meant to be doing anyway? Promoting an excessively calm world peace with strong ties between Russians and Americans? Russia hasn't been a credible threat to the US for 30 years. Nobody is accusing all these assets of actually doing anything. There isn't a path for how Russia is going to take advantage of the US. Anything Russia can do, China can do 3 times over.
The time that they were an appropriate punching bag is long since past.
And yet a Russian spy ring inside the US was broken up around 10 years ago, the NRA was infiltrated by Ms. Butina, etc.
>There isn't a path for how Russia is going to take advantage of the US
Maybe the plan is to sow discord among NATO allies, cause division among US citizens, make democratic processes such as voting appear unreliable, etc.
>There isn't a path for how Russia is going to take advantage of the US
Maybe the plan is to sow discord among NATO allies, cause division among US citizens, make democratic processes such as voting appear unreliable, etc.
The US was caught red handed spying on literally everyone with an internet connection. I don't accept that a country having a spy ring is a credible reason to have bad relations with them.
And if there are worries about division between US citizens, possibly Amazon, Apple and Google need to be probed for Russian connections. Suppressing the speech of the sitting president is going to be quite divisive and makes the democratic process look extremely unreliable.
There is no reason to be concerned if people have connections to Russia is the point here. The top examples of problems on your mind are kinda trivial compared to what the US does to itself.
And if there are worries about division between US citizens, possibly Amazon, Apple and Google need to be probed for Russian connections. Suppressing the speech of the sitting president is going to be quite divisive and makes the democratic process look extremely unreliable.
There is no reason to be concerned if people have connections to Russia is the point here. The top examples of problems on your mind are kinda trivial compared to what the US does to itself.
Didn't russia just commit the largest cyber espionage campaign ever via solarwinds? For unknown reasons Trump is a russia apologist who denies their wrongdoing (e.g bounties on us troops) at every opportunity.
[deleted]
> This means Parler's user demographic will become more and more full of fringe radical elements that scare off the silent majority less radical crowd.
The only way to contain fringe elements is to allow them to identify themselves and be prepared when they demonstrate intent to perform harmful acts (“terrorism”). The polite silent majority will go home, the extremist minority will go to prison if they overstep legal boundaries.
The only way to contain fringe elements is to allow them to identify themselves and be prepared when they demonstrate intent to perform harmful acts (“terrorism”). The polite silent majority will go home, the extremist minority will go to prison if they overstep legal boundaries.
One thing to consider is recruitment of more people through exposure. “Radicalization” is a thing.
I’m not sold on this action either way, just providing what I believe to be something worth considering.
I’m not sold on this action either way, just providing what I believe to be something worth considering.
Nope, you’re spot on. Diversions are critical for folks who might be on the path to radicalization, who can be reasoned with, who can critically think, and who can be brought back from the edge. Not everyone is a lost cause, and the effort must be put forth collectively.
Or not even radicalized, just massively misinformed.
It seems like people denying a problem exists is creating massive inertia against solutions to even the most apparent and emotionally salient problems (mass shootings, COVID, etc).
It seems like people denying a problem exists is creating massive inertia against solutions to even the most apparent and emotionally salient problems (mass shootings, COVID, etc).
Just like those Uyghurs in China, going off for "re-education" to learn how to be proper citizens.
Yes, and all this de-platforming is only going to deepen divisions, I fear. Is there any real reason for doing so, since there is always provisions to deal with people who break laws.
Are these companies acting preemptively from fear of being later assigned culpability?
Are these companies acting preemptively from fear of being later assigned culpability?
I don't think it's about lawbreakers, it's about depriving the devoted core of access to a large casual following.
The people really deeply devoted to these movements will remain, but many others will just lose interest if it becomes inconvenient.
The people really deeply devoted to these movements will remain, but many others will just lose interest if it becomes inconvenient.
Recruiting is a powerful method to reinforce tribalism.
The constant rejection isolates and estranges the proselytizer from normal society.
The constant rejection isolates and estranges the proselytizer from normal society.
There are systemic problems in society today which can be exploited to amplify the problems of fringe groups. This is how we got trump. So what do we do?
[deleted]
> Taking Parler off the app stores seriously de-legitimizes their cause and their celebrity
Does it though? 21% of voters approved of storming of the Capitol. That's not something that can be cancelled by banning a single app. I can see these bans biting the liberals in the back the next time Republicans take control of the federal government.
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
Does it though? 21% of voters approved of storming of the Capitol. That's not something that can be cancelled by banning a single app. I can see these bans biting the liberals in the back the next time Republicans take control of the federal government.
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
"What I found is that approximately 18 percent of Americans are highly disposed to authoritarianism, according to their answers to four simple survey questions used by social scientists to estimate this disposition. A further 23 percent or so are just one step below them on the authoritarian scale. This roughly 40 percent of Americans tend to favor authority, obedience and uniformity over freedom, independence and diversity."
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/23/trump-amer...
That also aligns with around 20% of voters supporting Nixon after Watergate. I think we should do our best to make sure that number stays at around 20% and does not grow; for if it does it imperils the whole democratic system of government that we take for granted.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/23/trump-amer...
That also aligns with around 20% of voters supporting Nixon after Watergate. I think we should do our best to make sure that number stays at around 20% and does not grow; for if it does it imperils the whole democratic system of government that we take for granted.
Unfortunately, that article entirely glosses over the uncomfortable truth that the Democrat left is also rife with their own breed authoritarians.
I wholeheartedly agree that authoritarianism is a threat to democracy, though.
I wholeheartedly agree that authoritarianism is a threat to democracy, though.
I'm not familiar with this truth. Who are the authoritarians from the Democratic left?
If the general zetigeist does not make it obvious to you, please look to history for excellent examples of authoritarianism being orthogonal to left/right political bias.
Pretending that it's exclusive to the political right is not favorable to democracy.
Pretending that it's exclusive to the political right is not favorable to democracy.
I agree authoritarianism is dangerous. I also agree that authoritarian dystopias can be driven not just by governments, but also by powerful corporations. I don't really see too much of an important distinction between either. This banning is effectively authoritarianism - just not perpetrated by a government (directly - but possibly indirectly to appease the new administration/govt by a large corp). I think we should be just as concerned about this as if it were perpetrated by a govt.
Echo chambers breed extremism, and ones with a low barrier to entry and a smokescreen of "saner" content are much easier to bring in new users.
If it's difficult to use the thing and the content skews more and more extreme, existing users may continue to get more radicalized, but new users don't offset attrition rates and eventually it dies off.
If it's difficult to use the thing and the content skews more and more extreme, existing users may continue to get more radicalized, but new users don't offset attrition rates and eventually it dies off.
Like with the Pirate Bay, the demand for Parler is already there. Outside of being declared illegal, Parler soon come back online or another app/website will take its place.
> it appears to be in a bit of a feedback loop as well, since it's obvious that deplatforming groups will make them feel persecuted and even more upset
To me it seems obvious the feedback works in the opposite direction. Deplatforming disrupts the feedback bubbles that radicalize these people.
I personally think they should be allowed to have their space anyway, if they can refrain from inciting violence.
But I would certainly absolutely refuse to do business with them, and have no problem with others making the same decision. People have the right to their repugnant ideas. They don’t have the right to force others to help promote them.
To me it seems obvious the feedback works in the opposite direction. Deplatforming disrupts the feedback bubbles that radicalize these people.
I personally think they should be allowed to have their space anyway, if they can refrain from inciting violence.
But I would certainly absolutely refuse to do business with them, and have no problem with others making the same decision. People have the right to their repugnant ideas. They don’t have the right to force others to help promote them.
The question here is where "doing business" ends and free speech begins. Arguably, paying for access to the Internet is also "doing business". Maybe paying for access to public utilities is "doing business" as well (if I don't pay my electric bill, I won't have electricity).
What option do I have then — go to the town square and voice my views? Even going to the town square is illegal in some cases these days, what with COVID restrictions.
I think this is an incredibly dangerous slippery slope, especially given how much our devices act as our "second brains" already.
What option do I have then — go to the town square and voice my views? Even going to the town square is illegal in some cases these days, what with COVID restrictions.
I think this is an incredibly dangerous slippery slope, especially given how much our devices act as our "second brains" already.
I would be open to a discussion about some kind of “fairness doctrine” for these companies - but as is, if it’s a private company, they are under no obligation to host speech they disagree with.
Is it problematic that people take social rejection as a reason to further radicalize? Sure - but such is human existence - and where is their personal responsibility to observe their social environment and alter their behaviors/beliefs if they are unhappy with the results they are receiving?
Is it problematic that people take social rejection as a reason to further radicalize? Sure - but such is human existence - and where is their personal responsibility to observe their social environment and alter their behaviors/beliefs if they are unhappy with the results they are receiving?
I see the point you're making. If we deconstruct the whole matter and look at it from an existential point of view, humans are incredibly constrained in their freedoms by the nature of our existence. In a fundamental way, our language and culture predetermines what we can think and how we think, and our environment is probably a bigger impediment to freedom of speech and thought than anything else.
But from a policy perspective on the ground, I think the ideal of freedom of speech should eclipse the concerns of private platforms wherever possible. But this is not to say we should not police the boundaries of free speech. In fact, if we had a more strict enforcement policy about unprotected speech like direct threats (such as L. Lin Wood's declaration that people should execute Mike Pence by firing squad [0]), we might not need these platform interventions at all.
[0]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/secret-service-says-...
But from a policy perspective on the ground, I think the ideal of freedom of speech should eclipse the concerns of private platforms wherever possible. But this is not to say we should not police the boundaries of free speech. In fact, if we had a more strict enforcement policy about unprotected speech like direct threats (such as L. Lin Wood's declaration that people should execute Mike Pence by firing squad [0]), we might not need these platform interventions at all.
[0]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/secret-service-says-...
Sure - but we’re not in that policy place with regards to social media, and they will fight any attempt to exert that kind of requirement.
Agreed — I'm not trying to say I know the answers. However, I do believe there's a role that social media companies have played in this polarization that needs to be addressed. Tristan Harris (of The Social Dilemma fame) makes very good points in this regard. Many of the political problems we have are thanks to to a distorted landscape of information distribution centered around advertising and platform addictiveness.
Maybe we need a "C-SPAN/NPR of social media".
Maybe we need a "C-SPAN/NPR of social media".
I agree that they are under no obligation to host speech they don't agree with.
Let's say if these companies are monopolies. Should they still hold the same power?
Let's say if these companies are monopolies. Should they still hold the same power?
Isn’t the general solution there to bust the monopoly?
The main exception is utilities which generally operate as natural monopolies. They should be (and generally are — this is isn’t a new idea) regulated to only be allowed to deny service for limited, specific reasons. There’s room for improvement here. ISPs are relatively new to being treated as utilities and many ordinary regulations that should be in-place are missing.
The main exception is utilities which generally operate as natural monopolies. They should be (and generally are — this is isn’t a new idea) regulated to only be allowed to deny service for limited, specific reasons. There’s room for improvement here. ISPs are relatively new to being treated as utilities and many ordinary regulations that should be in-place are missing.
Imagine a TV news network with audience of 1 billion people which will give free airtime to one political party only, especially during the election cycle. How big of an advantage this is and how much is this kind of reach worth? Aren't there campaign laws about this kind of thing?
Are you saying this speculatively or because you understand that your hypothetical is already the functional end of our media landscape?
What? Are you proposing we ban Fox News? :)
First, election cycle is over; second, they are not banning one political party.
First, election cycle is over; second, they are not banning one political party.
There's no real dangerous slippery slope. Don't kill people, or threaten harm, and you'll be fine.
I see this as the same argument against encryption.
You don't need it because if you don't do anything wrong you don't really need it.
You don't need it because if you don't do anything wrong you don't really need it.
I don’t see a slippery slope here.
All the precedents here are well established.
Explicit, credible calls for violence have never been protected speech. Parler’s own TOS forbid it. No moderation effort can be perfect, but we don’t need to argue in this case whether their moderation is sufficient. A violent insurrection was openly discussed and organized by thousands on Parler and then they went and did it. Lin wood called for the execution of the Vice President and many of his followers attempted to do just that.
In terms of the limits on a person or business to control with whom they will do business, utilities — ISPs in this case — should be regulated so they can only deny service for specific, limited reasons. They generally are, though I know this needs improvement.
Beyond that, businesses and individuals should have wide latitude to decide who to do business with.
What concerns me is the strange inversion freedom of speech has undergone in the Trump era. Instead of protecting the people from the government, it’s now invoked to protect the government — and supporters of the current administration — from the people. Now it means suppressing ordinary liberties like the right to not support people, content or speech you don’t want to.
All the precedents here are well established.
Explicit, credible calls for violence have never been protected speech. Parler’s own TOS forbid it. No moderation effort can be perfect, but we don’t need to argue in this case whether their moderation is sufficient. A violent insurrection was openly discussed and organized by thousands on Parler and then they went and did it. Lin wood called for the execution of the Vice President and many of his followers attempted to do just that.
In terms of the limits on a person or business to control with whom they will do business, utilities — ISPs in this case — should be regulated so they can only deny service for specific, limited reasons. They generally are, though I know this needs improvement.
Beyond that, businesses and individuals should have wide latitude to decide who to do business with.
What concerns me is the strange inversion freedom of speech has undergone in the Trump era. Instead of protecting the people from the government, it’s now invoked to protect the government — and supporters of the current administration — from the people. Now it means suppressing ordinary liberties like the right to not support people, content or speech you don’t want to.
> Lin wood called for the execution of the Vice President and many of his followers attempted to do just that.
I am in Europe so have not been paying too much attention. Your quote sound like hyperbole, can you show me some evidence that people actually tried to execute the vice president.
I am in Europe so have not been paying too much attention. Your quote sound like hyperbole, can you show me some evidence that people actually tried to execute the vice president.
Literally took 2 seconds to google: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/09/politics/parler-lin-wood-mike...
okaram(2)
> I personally think they should be allowed to have their space anyway, if they can refrain from inciting violence.
If.
The whole reason why they got banned in the first place was because of the incitement.
There have been all sorts of crazy things said since the US election (and before), and there weren't any bans, just "possible misleading statement" tags.
If.
The whole reason why they got banned in the first place was because of the incitement.
There have been all sorts of crazy things said since the US election (and before), and there weren't any bans, just "possible misleading statement" tags.
Parler is being held to an odd standard here. They need to remove content inciting violence like that on Capitol Tuesday, but the BLM related protests/riots killed more people and damaged more property and whatsapp, facebook, twitter etc kept the inciting comments. :/
There are some important distinctions between Black Lives Matter and Trump’s camp.
BLM’s mission is to strengthen democracy and justice with the unfortunate side effect of the fringe propagating violence. The core and leadership would rather the violence and property damage wasn’t taking place.
Trump is an authoritarian who is trying to subvert democracy, and his supporters consider violence to not only be acceptable but to be a necessary virtue.
If it were possible to remove disinformation, violence, and property destruction from each movement, BLM would still have an important message, while on the MAGA side I’m not sure what values would remain. What’s the coherent message beyond spite toward the left?
BLM’s mission is to strengthen democracy and justice with the unfortunate side effect of the fringe propagating violence. The core and leadership would rather the violence and property damage wasn’t taking place.
Trump is an authoritarian who is trying to subvert democracy, and his supporters consider violence to not only be acceptable but to be a necessary virtue.
If it were possible to remove disinformation, violence, and property destruction from each movement, BLM would still have an important message, while on the MAGA side I’m not sure what values would remain. What’s the coherent message beyond spite toward the left?
BLM's mission is to improve (and lengthen) the lives of black people.
The protestors mission was to prevent the subversion of democracy.
I don't think using one side being mistaken about whether their actions help with their mission as a justification for surpression is fair.
As for the general MAGA message? I'm not red tribe and have no friends who are so take what I say with a grain of salt:
* The USA has gotten worse.
* Immigration is bad and one of the reasons for the USA decline.
* Our (Red tribe) economic interests are not being defended or advanced.
* Red tribe social norms and interests are not being advanced or defended by the centres of power. E.g. values related to family.
* Acceptance and promotion of alternative sexual expressions is bad for the world.
* Globalism is bad.
The protestors mission was to prevent the subversion of democracy.
I don't think using one side being mistaken about whether their actions help with their mission as a justification for surpression is fair.
As for the general MAGA message? I'm not red tribe and have no friends who are so take what I say with a grain of salt:
* The USA has gotten worse.
* Immigration is bad and one of the reasons for the USA decline.
* Our (Red tribe) economic interests are not being defended or advanced.
* Red tribe social norms and interests are not being advanced or defended by the centres of power. E.g. values related to family.
* Acceptance and promotion of alternative sexual expressions is bad for the world.
* Globalism is bad.
The distinctions are that you like and agree with BLM, but hate Trump and think he is evil.
Well, that's one distinction, it's true.
I agree and like Black Lives Matter because they have a valid point to make, and while it's unfortunate that there are fringe elements causing property damage and there have been instances of violence, that's not central to their mission and most people I know who support Black Lives Matter are against violence and property damage.
I dislike Trump because he's corrupt, incompetent, racist, sexist, a sociopath, and an authoritarian. I feel like it's a valid position to be against those things. However, any politician on any end of the political spectrum can be all those things, so setting those aside, let's look at his actual policies: the only one I can think of is isolationism.
I mean I'm mostly just repeating myself. Feel free to make a counterargument.
I agree and like Black Lives Matter because they have a valid point to make, and while it's unfortunate that there are fringe elements causing property damage and there have been instances of violence, that's not central to their mission and most people I know who support Black Lives Matter are against violence and property damage.
I dislike Trump because he's corrupt, incompetent, racist, sexist, a sociopath, and an authoritarian. I feel like it's a valid position to be against those things. However, any politician on any end of the political spectrum can be all those things, so setting those aside, let's look at his actual policies: the only one I can think of is isolationism.
I mean I'm mostly just repeating myself. Feel free to make a counterargument.
> most people I know who support Black Lives Matter are against violence and property damage
I take it "punch a Nazi" wasn't popular in your circle then?
Btw: I think Trump is an incomptent, a populist and a con man. But he's no more racist and sexist than the average american.
I take it "punch a Nazi" wasn't popular in your circle then?
Btw: I think Trump is an incomptent, a populist and a con man. But he's no more racist and sexist than the average american.
> But he's no more racist and sexist than the average american
Jeez, I hope that's not true.
Jeez, I hope that's not true.
No, there is no double standard.
The BLM leaders were saying "we are marching/gathering to protest police brutality". However things got out of hand. Violence was not their intent. See also the false flag operations against BLM:
* https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-fake-antifa-acount-whit...
The folks on Parler are saying "we need to hang the traitor Pence". And this has been going on for months:
> “Will you and several hundred more go with me to DC and fight our way into the Congress and arrest every Democrat who has participated in the coup?” Holland posted on Friday. “We may have to shoot and kill many of the Communist BLM and ANTIFA Democrat foot soldiers to accomplish this!!!”
* https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/11/cops-n11.html
> One of Lang Holland’s posts reflected Donald Trump’s baseless allegations that the presidential election he lost to Joe Biden was stolen, and said: “Death to all Marxist Democrats.”
> Holland, who led the police department in Marshall, Arkansas, also wrote “take no prisoners” and “leave no survivors”.
* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/09/local-arkans...
> In a popular thread referencing a Trump tweet promoting the debunked conspiracy theory of election fraud, one user asked, "what if Congress ignores the evidence?"
> "Storm the Capitol," was a popular reply.
> Five days later, on January 6, as pro-Trump militia proceeded to do exactly that, the mood on thedonald.win switched to jubilation and outright defiance of police, with thousands joining "watching party" message threads.
> "This is what Trump told us to do!" a top post in one of these threads read.
* https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-01-08/us-capitol-st...
Do you see the difference?
The BLM leaders were saying "we are marching/gathering to protest police brutality". However things got out of hand. Violence was not their intent. See also the false flag operations against BLM:
* https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-fake-antifa-acount-whit...
The folks on Parler are saying "we need to hang the traitor Pence". And this has been going on for months:
> “Will you and several hundred more go with me to DC and fight our way into the Congress and arrest every Democrat who has participated in the coup?” Holland posted on Friday. “We may have to shoot and kill many of the Communist BLM and ANTIFA Democrat foot soldiers to accomplish this!!!”
* https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/11/cops-n11.html
> One of Lang Holland’s posts reflected Donald Trump’s baseless allegations that the presidential election he lost to Joe Biden was stolen, and said: “Death to all Marxist Democrats.”
> Holland, who led the police department in Marshall, Arkansas, also wrote “take no prisoners” and “leave no survivors”.
* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/09/local-arkans...
> In a popular thread referencing a Trump tweet promoting the debunked conspiracy theory of election fraud, one user asked, "what if Congress ignores the evidence?"
> "Storm the Capitol," was a popular reply.
> Five days later, on January 6, as pro-Trump militia proceeded to do exactly that, the mood on thedonald.win switched to jubilation and outright defiance of police, with thousands joining "watching party" message threads.
> "This is what Trump told us to do!" a top post in one of these threads read.
* https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-01-08/us-capitol-st...
Do you see the difference?
How did you determine that Holland was the protest leader? Was he even the capitol invasion leader?
If I could be satisfied that he was the leader then I can acknowledge that as an important difference.
If I could be satisfied that he was the leader then I can acknowledge that as an important difference.
The Proud Boys might be an interesting case study. Creator Gavin McInnes along with the group was de-platformed a couple years ago. I remember them at the time seeming like a dangerous group of hipsters, nerds and meatheads.
Today they appear to be a bunch of navy seal white power dudes with guns. Scary. That culture kept growing outside of the spotlight in a creepy dark corner.
Today they appear to be a bunch of navy seal white power dudes with guns. Scary. That culture kept growing outside of the spotlight in a creepy dark corner.
Back around the debates when the Proud Boys were in the news, I watched a Vice segment about them.
Apparently their current leader is of Cuban descent as was most of the people in the segment. Out of the eight members in the video, six of them previously voted for Obama.
I don't know too much about them except from what I saw on Vice. Is it really a group of white supremacists?
edit: Reference: The Right-Wing Latinos of Miami: Proud Boys and Refugees https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Qa1f29diE
Apparently their current leader is of Cuban descent as was most of the people in the segment. Out of the eight members in the video, six of them previously voted for Obama.
I don't know too much about them except from what I saw on Vice. Is it really a group of white supremacists?
edit: Reference: The Right-Wing Latinos of Miami: Proud Boys and Refugees https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Qa1f29diE
They are definitely becoming more and more radicalized, but I don't know where you get this white power stuff. Their leader is a minority and many of their members are black, and other minorities.
However, I think deplatforming them has made them more radical. I think that we are going to see this more and more, by isolating people and forcing them to go into places where there are no public postings, nobody is going to see how radical they get. You are going to lose some people but the really dangerous people will wind up reinforced in their belief that they are being persecuted, and if they think they have nowhere to go and nothing to hope for, I think we are going to start seeing some real ugly violence.
However, I think deplatforming them has made them more radical. I think that we are going to see this more and more, by isolating people and forcing them to go into places where there are no public postings, nobody is going to see how radical they get. You are going to lose some people but the really dangerous people will wind up reinforced in their belief that they are being persecuted, and if they think they have nowhere to go and nothing to hope for, I think we are going to start seeing some real ugly violence.
I think you are right regarding white power.
Right, dangerous hipster nerds, but they were on the fringes of the mainstream. If I remember correctly, Joe Rogan had Gavin McInnes on his show around that time. He was not by any means "center-right", but at least "acceptable" in the way that Ben Shapiro is today.
There's an adage that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that's obviously been missing in the long winter of the past few years.
There's an adage that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that's obviously been missing in the long winter of the past few years.
There are good reasons to believe that adage is apocryphal. How do you square that with e.g. the mere exposure theory, in which the very act of seeing something makes you more accepting of it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect
Interesting question.
I don't think these two concepts are in opposition. Of course, exposure to a toxic ideological viewpoint is poisonous for the recipient, and may in fact entice them to become more toxic themselves (if they are swayed by said reasoning). But a crucial part of the societal contract is to tolerate such toxic viewpoints so as to have the opportunity to redeem those who hold them. In other words, by eating a little bit of the poison ourselves, we are granted the opportunity to save that person from their own poison, by showing compassion and empathy towards them.
People who have hate in their hearts are not entirely bad people. Everyone was once a child, everyone has experienced the mystery of simply existing, almost everyone has experienced love (whether from their parents or someone else), most people enjoy art and music. Evoking our shared humanity and showing compassion for others allows us to break down their toxic ideologies and even reform them to be beacons of compassion themselves.
Perhaps the best and most compelling anecdote to promulgate this way of thinking is Daryl Davis, who, through his talents and love of music, has reformed many of the most hateful people in our country — members of the KKK. I would recommend this TED talk by him, titled "Why I, as a black man, attend KKK rallies": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw. It really encapsulates the power of this viewpoint.
The crucial element here is ensuring that we have channels of communication that allow for this sort of compassionate understanding... I fear that the compression of thought foisted upon us by social media platforms and online communication tools obscures the basic reality of our shared suffering, joy, intrigue, and humanity. These important facets of communication can be lost to the aether of technology, and our true intentions are thereby belied by the incorrigibly weak substrate of written language.
As a note, I think we have discussed the topic of free speech in another thread before. It's good to "see" you again :)
I don't think these two concepts are in opposition. Of course, exposure to a toxic ideological viewpoint is poisonous for the recipient, and may in fact entice them to become more toxic themselves (if they are swayed by said reasoning). But a crucial part of the societal contract is to tolerate such toxic viewpoints so as to have the opportunity to redeem those who hold them. In other words, by eating a little bit of the poison ourselves, we are granted the opportunity to save that person from their own poison, by showing compassion and empathy towards them.
People who have hate in their hearts are not entirely bad people. Everyone was once a child, everyone has experienced the mystery of simply existing, almost everyone has experienced love (whether from their parents or someone else), most people enjoy art and music. Evoking our shared humanity and showing compassion for others allows us to break down their toxic ideologies and even reform them to be beacons of compassion themselves.
Perhaps the best and most compelling anecdote to promulgate this way of thinking is Daryl Davis, who, through his talents and love of music, has reformed many of the most hateful people in our country — members of the KKK. I would recommend this TED talk by him, titled "Why I, as a black man, attend KKK rallies": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw. It really encapsulates the power of this viewpoint.
The crucial element here is ensuring that we have channels of communication that allow for this sort of compassionate understanding... I fear that the compression of thought foisted upon us by social media platforms and online communication tools obscures the basic reality of our shared suffering, joy, intrigue, and humanity. These important facets of communication can be lost to the aether of technology, and our true intentions are thereby belied by the incorrigibly weak substrate of written language.
As a note, I think we have discussed the topic of free speech in another thread before. It's good to "see" you again :)
> apocryphal
Apocryphal means that the origin of the story is doubtful.
I think you might mean "the adage is incorrect" here.
Apocryphal means that the origin of the story is doubtful.
I think you might mean "the adage is incorrect" here.
exposure is happening both ways
What violent conspiracy theories is the left exposing people to?
I meant something else. When groups are not in their own respective bubbles, indeed, non-extremists might be exposed to extremists' propaganda and potentially can adopt such ideas, and as a result, increase the amount of overall extremism.
On the other hand, similarly, an extremist exposed to non-extremists' propaganda potentially may be affected by it as well, decreasing the amount of overall extremism.
Or perhaps the total amount of extremism stays the same and instead it is spread out over large number of people, removing "spikes".
I do not know if it is true. But just an idea to consider - the discussed process of de-platforming removes _two-way_ communication method.
On the other hand, similarly, an extremist exposed to non-extremists' propaganda potentially may be affected by it as well, decreasing the amount of overall extremism.
Or perhaps the total amount of extremism stays the same and instead it is spread out over large number of people, removing "spikes".
I do not know if it is true. But just an idea to consider - the discussed process of de-platforming removes _two-way_ communication method.
mudil(2)
"To me it seems obvious the feedback works in the opposite direction. Deplatforming disrupts the feedback bubbles that radicalize these people."
That does not seem obvious to me AT ALL. Most radical movements in history had no access to the Internet and relied on personal contact to radicalize, e.g. preachers in mosques. This also creates deeper bonds among the members.
If the result of deplatforming from Twitter is that the organization shifts to "meat world", you probably have a more dangerous opponent on your hands.
That does not seem obvious to me AT ALL. Most radical movements in history had no access to the Internet and relied on personal contact to radicalize, e.g. preachers in mosques. This also creates deeper bonds among the members.
If the result of deplatforming from Twitter is that the organization shifts to "meat world", you probably have a more dangerous opponent on your hands.
> To me it seems obvious the feedback works in the opposite direction. Deplatforming disrupts the feedback bubbles that radicalize these people.
I'm not too sure about that. For people who are already radicalized and believe that there's a conspiracy of some kind working against them, wouldn't that just "prove" that there is such a conspiracy?
I agree that deplatforming will prevent future people from being radicalized, but what about the people who already are? The whole pizzagate incident shows that there are definitely people who believe all kinds of conspiracy theories, and are convinced enough to act on them.
I wonder what the solution for that is, though.
I'm not too sure about that. For people who are already radicalized and believe that there's a conspiracy of some kind working against them, wouldn't that just "prove" that there is such a conspiracy?
I agree that deplatforming will prevent future people from being radicalized, but what about the people who already are? The whole pizzagate incident shows that there are definitely people who believe all kinds of conspiracy theories, and are convinced enough to act on them.
I wonder what the solution for that is, though.
> I wonder what the solution for that is, though.
Ironically, maybe Trump showed us the right solution with his tirade against section 230. i.e. the end of the social media platforms.
Ironically, maybe Trump showed us the right solution with his tirade against section 230. i.e. the end of the social media platforms.
> To me it seems obvious the feedback works in the opposite direction. Deplatforming disrupts the feedback bubbles that radicalize these people.
I think it will push them off to even more obscure platforms, and the ones that do make it there will be much more extreme and dangerous. They'll be harder to monitor as well.
At some point, a show of force might be necessary.
I think it will push them off to even more obscure platforms, and the ones that do make it there will be much more extreme and dangerous. They'll be harder to monitor as well.
At some point, a show of force might be necessary.
Really do you want the government to do something similar to the "night of the long knives" like what happened in Germany? Think about what type of message that is sending and what type of society you want to live in.
I find it very hard to believe that people get the impression that Trump was the fascist when you are over here advocating for a fascist method of silencing opposition groups.
Violence and persecution is never the answer.
I find it very hard to believe that people get the impression that Trump was the fascist when you are over here advocating for a fascist method of silencing opposition groups.
Violence and persecution is never the answer.
Historically fascists movements have always been finished through bloodshed.
Or they simply fizzle out as their obscurity undermines recruitment. We’ll see.
That didn't work out so well with ISIS did it?
In 2011-2014 era, IS*S was huge on Twitter. Not many people seem to remember this happened. They were posting propaganda videos and actively recruiting people on the public timeline. Jack was letting that go on for years. A lot of the terror attacks in that era were tied back to people getting recruited online.
Now it's basically dead. Was it the deplatforming? Did the world just move on? Nobody knows.
Now it's basically dead. Was it the deplatforming? Did the world just move on? Nobody knows.
ISIS had clear ideological roots in the region, recruitment of socially disgraced military leaders, and a complete power vacuum to fill as they ravished a vulnerable, impoverish and diffuse population. What an absurd, ahistorical example.
And far right groups don't have ideological roots in the US? It's not absurd, it's history.
Yes, it’s absurd to argue that kicking some people
off a social media website is equivalent to: an existing domestic terror group that has committed organized violence at home and abroad (Al Qaida) is going to produce an even more radical offshoot organization (ISIS) after the government is destroyed by a foreign adversary (USA) leaving an entire geographic region without any projection of force (the Levant).
Many of those “domestic terrorists” have fought against “foreign” terrorists for the government of the United States, having as leaders of their chain of command people who now vilify them (both Bush Jr and Obama). This is Rambo I all over again, only that it doesn’t take place out somewhere in the obscure woods but in the open political field.
[deleted]
> It must feel pretty surreal to be someone that is constantly moving to different communication apps and instantly finding them pulled by anyone and everyone.
It will feel exhilarating. It will enhance their victimhood, increase emotional attachment to their cause and serves to prove, to them, that "the man" is trying to unjustly suppress them and that they must group together, somehow, and rise up.
And will make them, even more, vulnerable to manipulation by those who want a mob. And there are many.
I support the suspension, since it incites violence. And I'm worried where society now heads.
When a large number convince themselves they are unjustly oppressed they will justify all kinds of horrors in the name of defence from the whatever bete noire is chosen for them.
It will feel exhilarating. It will enhance their victimhood, increase emotional attachment to their cause and serves to prove, to them, that "the man" is trying to unjustly suppress them and that they must group together, somehow, and rise up.
And will make them, even more, vulnerable to manipulation by those who want a mob. And there are many.
I support the suspension, since it incites violence. And I'm worried where society now heads.
When a large number convince themselves they are unjustly oppressed they will justify all kinds of horrors in the name of defence from the whatever bete noire is chosen for them.
It’s really annoying as someone interested in hearing what fringe voices have to say even if I disagree with them. I’m constantly having to try to figure out where to go if I want to break out of the liberal echo chamber.
still plenty of it on twitter and 4chan
Twitter and 4Chan are generally for bareknuckle flamewars, and low-effort shitposts. In short, they're the least useful elements of the fringe, and their producers are easy to find because half their fun comes from ignoring bans, and pseudononymously transgressing social norms.
The content that is constantly forced to move is dialogue, and ideological exchange. The useful stuff. If you want to follow those discussions, you have to pay constant attention, and be prepared to run through social media accounts and platforms like tissue platform, or socially engineer yourself into multiple encrypted chats.
The content that is constantly forced to move is dialogue, and ideological exchange. The useful stuff. If you want to follow those discussions, you have to pay constant attention, and be prepared to run through social media accounts and platforms like tissue platform, or socially engineer yourself into multiple encrypted chats.
Bud(1)
No it feels terrible and turned a Kerry 04, Obama 08 voter into someone who literally loathes the United States.
I'm not the only one who now has the urge to participate in society as little as possible.
I'm not the only one who now has the urge to participate in society as little as possible.
The oppression may be seen as “just” or “unjust” but it definetely is there, the US Government itself usually classifies these sorts of acts (suppressing free speech) as oppression, that is when it happens in other countries.
That core group of enraged users will move elsewhere. Parler is a tumor, and Apple has loped it off. What tumors will rise in its place? If hate is widespread and has metastasized, the US will not last much longer.
But optimistically, 80% of Republicans surveyed said they opposed the break in (88% overall). If promoters of hate have to go underground, fewer people will follow them. Not only because of the hurdles to get there and broadcast their message, but the hate will be more concentrated and vile.
But optimistically, 80% of Republicans surveyed said they opposed the break in (88% overall). If promoters of hate have to go underground, fewer people will follow them. Not only because of the hurdles to get there and broadcast their message, but the hate will be more concentrated and vile.
Family and friends I haven’t talked to in 10+ years are calling and texting me.
Giving me current addresses. Making sure everyone has paper maps in case things get worse.
These are people that don’t normally follow politics at all.
A lot of of people are freaking out.
Never seen anything like this here. Feels like Arab Springs.
A lot of of people are freaking out.
Never seen anything like this here. Feels like Arab Springs.
That sounds like doomsday prepping. If a social media platform plastered with calls to violence gets deplatformed, and you start doomsday prepping because it really impacts you that much, then you are probably knee deep in the conspiracy theory BS that made parler popular in the first place.
People don't doomsday prep because they are currently being impacted, they prep because they are concerned that they might be impacted in the future. Now, you can paint these people as all being conspiracy theorists, but consider that they may be more like people that are concerned that the government is spying on them–which is less "I am a terrorist and this concerns me" and more of a "wait, they can do that? (Granted, they are currently only doing it to terrorists, but this still concerns me…)"
From my understanding of the reasoning behind deplatforming I think there comes a point where it isn’t worth chasing any more.
The aim isn’t to remove the sites entirely, but to make it difficult enough to find that people won’t just stumble across them or seamlessly follow a link to them.
Last I heard Stormfront still exists on Tor and presumably still serves a dedicated audience. But I imagine it has a considerably larger problem attracting new readers than it used to.
The aim isn’t to remove the sites entirely, but to make it difficult enough to find that people won’t just stumble across them or seamlessly follow a link to them.
Last I heard Stormfront still exists on Tor and presumably still serves a dedicated audience. But I imagine it has a considerably larger problem attracting new readers than it used to.
That is the strategy, but the problem is that it produces an exhaust of increasingly angry people with fewer and fewer ties to society, with each distillation cycle.
Even though you're filtering out the less-radical and committed members of a population, you're also priming everyone left behind to be more sympathetic to the excesses of the people who stuck around.
These were tolerable outcomes for already fringe communities.
But as the technique is scaled up to impact increasingly broad segments of the population, I believe it creates something increasingly large, and increasingly dangerous dangerous.
Even though you're filtering out the less-radical and committed members of a population, you're also priming everyone left behind to be more sympathetic to the excesses of the people who stuck around.
These were tolerable outcomes for already fringe communities.
But as the technique is scaled up to impact increasingly broad segments of the population, I believe it creates something increasingly large, and increasingly dangerous dangerous.
> That is the strategy, but the problem is that it produces an exhaust of increasingly angry people with fewer and fewer ties to society, with each distillation cycle
That's not a problem, unless you feel society ought to "save" everyone from themselves (as opposed to protecting society at large from bad actors).
I share your sentiments, but the current US prison system tends towards isolating bad actors: no real effort is expended to reduce recedevism, with the goal being punishment rather than rehabilitation.
That's not a problem, unless you feel society ought to "save" everyone from themselves (as opposed to protecting society at large from bad actors).
I share your sentiments, but the current US prison system tends towards isolating bad actors: no real effort is expended to reduce recedevism, with the goal being punishment rather than rehabilitation.
It's also a problem if you produce too many of them.
This is well-trod territory. See the war on drugs - society is very much ok with locking up a large (or even increasing) number of "bad" people. Being "tough on crime" increased electability
The war on drugs was also a resounding failure and society slowly turned against it. Almost all the legalization movements are grass-roots and push their ideas through ballot initiatives. There is a strange disconnect here: voters generally vote for legalization, if they have a say, but elected politicians are afraid to do the same because they worry about their electability.
I think that need to communicate without external interference is at least as strong in people as the need to light up a joint. Even in China, where controls on communication are very strong, people manage to find a way to circumvent the limits. Much more so in other autocratic regimes, such as Iran.
I think that need to communicate without external interference is at least as strong in people as the need to light up a joint. Even in China, where controls on communication are very strong, people manage to find a way to circumvent the limits. Much more so in other autocratic regimes, such as Iran.
I agree that society is fine with it, but despite it disproportionately affecting minority groups, it doesn't explicitly target a population with a collective political identity by virtue of their convictions. This is, to my eyes more analogous to a less-harsh corporate McCarthyism (keep in mind, I'm not making a statement of more, but rather functional parity) with a much greater potential for ubiquity.
Drug offenders are more likely to become low-level criminals, check out of society, unemployed, or impoverished. They may also be more likely to latch onto fringe groups that offer them an identity or sense of empowerment, but that latching isn't deterministically going towards any particular group.
They're imprisoned for a crime that they likely know is bullshit, but the thing they're imprisoned for is amoral to them, and a personal matter. Smoking weed or doing opiates is not a coherent commentary on the social order. Becoming a drug user is a matter of weighing the risks vs the rewards that come with it in the moment you choose to start. They likely just want to live their lives.
When they are caught and punished, they are locked up, and afforded no freedom of movement whatsoever.
Their punisher is the government, a massive byzantine machine with power which society has collective assumed to be legitimate (anarchists excluded). The enforcers of those laws may be dicks, but they are as much an extension of that somewhat legitimate power as the sympathetic public defender you may be about to receive.
Systematically and repeatedly cutting the communications ties of a massive political block for the behavior of their worst actors has a very different effect.
The locus of their concerns is by its very nature external, they already have a collective conception of who their opposition is, and the people repeatedly cutting them from their social circles are not only unelected, but entirely lacking in political legitimacy despite their massive power. They perceive that what they do is much less an indicator of whether they'll be affected than who they might possibly be with.
I believe that this creates an ample breeding grounds for the next generation of domestic terrorists in a manner that gives them concrete grounds for their sense of isolation, while simultaneously creating an ambient corps of collaborators and sympathetic allies in society at an unprecedented scale.
Parler is by no means a niche application. One of my bosses, a milquetoast Republican who was entirely contemptuous of the Capitol incident, and was talking about regretting his vote for Trump afterwards has it on his phone, because he fancied a Twitter alternative for conservative ideas. He has no conception that he might be a potential domestic terrorist. All he'll perceive is that 'Democrats' in 'big tech' are trying to ban the opposition party now that they've secured all three branches of the government.
To him, violent extremists will increasingly look like freedom fighters, and a mild sense of annoyance at 'progressive tech' will increasingly become an awareness of a perceived institutional threat to his way of life.
Drug offenders are more likely to become low-level criminals, check out of society, unemployed, or impoverished. They may also be more likely to latch onto fringe groups that offer them an identity or sense of empowerment, but that latching isn't deterministically going towards any particular group.
They're imprisoned for a crime that they likely know is bullshit, but the thing they're imprisoned for is amoral to them, and a personal matter. Smoking weed or doing opiates is not a coherent commentary on the social order. Becoming a drug user is a matter of weighing the risks vs the rewards that come with it in the moment you choose to start. They likely just want to live their lives.
When they are caught and punished, they are locked up, and afforded no freedom of movement whatsoever.
Their punisher is the government, a massive byzantine machine with power which society has collective assumed to be legitimate (anarchists excluded). The enforcers of those laws may be dicks, but they are as much an extension of that somewhat legitimate power as the sympathetic public defender you may be about to receive.
Systematically and repeatedly cutting the communications ties of a massive political block for the behavior of their worst actors has a very different effect.
The locus of their concerns is by its very nature external, they already have a collective conception of who their opposition is, and the people repeatedly cutting them from their social circles are not only unelected, but entirely lacking in political legitimacy despite their massive power. They perceive that what they do is much less an indicator of whether they'll be affected than who they might possibly be with.
I believe that this creates an ample breeding grounds for the next generation of domestic terrorists in a manner that gives them concrete grounds for their sense of isolation, while simultaneously creating an ambient corps of collaborators and sympathetic allies in society at an unprecedented scale.
Parler is by no means a niche application. One of my bosses, a milquetoast Republican who was entirely contemptuous of the Capitol incident, and was talking about regretting his vote for Trump afterwards has it on his phone, because he fancied a Twitter alternative for conservative ideas. He has no conception that he might be a potential domestic terrorist. All he'll perceive is that 'Democrats' in 'big tech' are trying to ban the opposition party now that they've secured all three branches of the government.
To him, violent extremists will increasingly look like freedom fighters, and a mild sense of annoyance at 'progressive tech' will increasingly become an awareness of a perceived institutional threat to his way of life.
It's a problem when it's millions upon millions of diseased, lonely, violent, impoverished, manipulated people who now have no way to communicate and are heavily armed.
That's less of a problem than having them be able to communicate, as we just saw.
This is actually demonstrably false - people have successfully been reintegrated into "normal" thinking by removing corrosive media influences.
The key distinction is between people who seek out certain content and people who stumble across it passively (in a morning car commute, say). The latter can actually be de-radicalized and de-programmed much more easily, and it's a worthwhile task to do so. Trumpism is a cult, and so the deprogramming methods have to be similar to recovery from a cult (and not the typical arguments that we see on facebook and such which are completely useless & worse)
The key distinction is between people who seek out certain content and people who stumble across it passively (in a morning car commute, say). The latter can actually be de-radicalized and de-programmed much more easily, and it's a worthwhile task to do so. Trumpism is a cult, and so the deprogramming methods have to be similar to recovery from a cult (and not the typical arguments that we see on facebook and such which are completely useless & worse)
Also, at least for Apple, I recall them giving Parler an ultimatum to moderate their platform. For example, if an app was full of child porn or ISIS videos, I would imagine Apple would take the app down. Similarly here, due to the lack of moderation, Parler was full of doxxing, call to violence and recruitment and planning for attacks on the Capitol (both the one that happened and future ones).
That's the reason for why it was removed, not simply because Apple doesn't like conservatives as they will claim.
That's the reason for why it was removed, not simply because Apple doesn't like conservatives as they will claim.
[deleted]
Companies want to cover their asses and protect their own interests. Customers are essentially paying for usage of a company's services and don't actually own anything besides their own code and IP. If company decides it's worth it to them to remove customer, then they will do that. Companies have no reason to care what their customers do, as long as it doesn't adversely effect the company (see also: Apple clamping down on companies avoiding the 30% revenue cut).
I think what will be interesting to watch is how the government responds with legislation/mandates.
Will the government require they can ask for people be removed as customers from certain companies? Or require companies share data about customers with the government? Or give the government a backdoor API?
In the name of using it for good, in some ways it makes sense. Then, how does one trust the government to only use the tools for good - and who judges what "good" is?
If a 17 year old gets the keys to a Ferrari to only drive to school at 35mph, can they be trusted with that responsibility?
I think what will be interesting to watch is how the government responds with legislation/mandates.
Will the government require they can ask for people be removed as customers from certain companies? Or require companies share data about customers with the government? Or give the government a backdoor API?
In the name of using it for good, in some ways it makes sense. Then, how does one trust the government to only use the tools for good - and who judges what "good" is?
If a 17 year old gets the keys to a Ferrari to only drive to school at 35mph, can they be trusted with that responsibility?
They could ban Signal too.
Edit: Signal is now #1 on the app store. Speech that was removed will obviously just migrate and be encrypted. Though not as public, the actual speech is still going to be communicated between people and groups. So why wouldn't Signal be next?
Edit: Signal is now #1 on the app store. Speech that was removed will obviously just migrate and be encrypted. Though not as public, the actual speech is still going to be communicated between people and groups. So why wouldn't Signal be next?
I wish people would stop making this claim without supporting it in any way. It's kind of a ludicrous claim. Signal bears no resemblance to Parler, and there are various other reasons why this analogy is poorly drawn, like the fact that Signal's traffic is entirely private and Apple would no way of knowing the contents of said traffic, and the fact that Signal could not possibly "moderate" said traffic for the same reason.
You make a good point. Though I have to agree with Snowden when he says this will be remembered as a turning point in the battle for control over digital speech.
A good argument could be made we don't need end to end encryption without a back door. And in this environment, there may be little political opposition.
A good argument could be made we don't need end to end encryption without a back door. And in this environment, there may be little political opposition.
A lot of the speech that's being labeled as "inciting violence" on Parler would feel different if it was spoken privately. The fact that it's being communicated publicly puts it in a different category, almost like you're saying it on TV or in the proverbial town square. I don't think this is setting any sort of precedent for attacking private communications.
I don't think it's any secret that groups were planning an attack on the Capital before the days events started in DC.
Were those insurgents domestic terrorists?
What if it is to be found that they primarily used Signal for example to communicate their plans with each other?
Were those insurgents domestic terrorists?
What if it is to be found that they primarily used Signal for example to communicate their plans with each other?
> A good argument could be made we don't need end to end encryption without a back door.
No, but don’t think it can. But you can try.
No, but don’t think it can. But you can try.
If terrorists use Signal to plan and carry out attacks, why shouldn't the technology be regulated or banned?
I do recall various other chat apps being painted as being used by "terrorists" in the past. For some, the fact that bad people can communicate at all is something they would not like to have, at the expense of good people having access to those tools in some cases.
I think the Signal surge is due to many people disagreeing with WhatsApp's new terms of use and privacy policy. I saw many people in my network advocating a move to Signal and Telegram after Facebook pushed the update.
Signal isn’t a social network. It’s just encrypted text messages.
"There is no explicit limit to the number of people that can be added to a Signal group chat. However, if the group becomes very large, it can become difficult to manage and you may notice that messages take a bit longer to send."
Seems like it wouldn't bet too hard for it to become a social network.
Seems like it wouldn't bet too hard for it to become a social network.
Signal doesn’t focus on discovery. It requires the relationship to form outside of the app.
They would have to apply that metric to ALL communication apps. I don't think it would fly.
“... it's obvious that deplatforming groups will make them feel persecuted....”
It is persecution.
per·se·cu·tion - hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.
It is persecution.
per·se·cu·tion - hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.
They are not deplatformed for their political beliefs, but for their non-moderation of calls for violence. If this happens to be what somebodies politics is about, tough luck.
But it’s not the same as persecution.
Twitter does not moderate equally. So why would you expect anyone else to?
I am a conservative and right now in the community there is talks of using high-anonymity tools like TOR to go completely underground. We're trying to educate everyone on how to use these tools as quickly as possible.
Joe Biden tried to introduce the infamous Clipper Chip in 1991 (see page 63):
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/28754/5982256...
Now that Silicon Valley corporations fall over themselves to appease the Democrats, perhaps he has a second chance.
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/28754/5982256...
Now that Silicon Valley corporations fall over themselves to appease the Democrats, perhaps he has a second chance.
You can always use a web site so long as DNS is working and even then there are options. It's more surreal that the internet has devolved into a medium for proprietary apps designed to capture as much of people's identity as possible. Access via web empowers the end user to control what data they send and receive. You'd think these wannabe revolutionaries would get on board with it.
If you want to kill websites, don't traget the DNS, target the certificates.
If Let's Encrypt bans a site, for example, as well as the other CAs, it is effectively dead.
But there are hundreds of CAs...
Of course, if Google says that of your CA accepts a particular site they will remove you from Chrome...
So this come back to overly centralized systems
If Let's Encrypt bans a site, for example, as well as the other CAs, it is effectively dead.
But there are hundreds of CAs...
Of course, if Google says that of your CA accepts a particular site they will remove you from Chrome...
So this come back to overly centralized systems
They could just go plain text no?
Apple: “Parler has not taken adequate measures to address the proliferation of these threats to people’s safety. We have suspended Parler from the App Store until they resolve these issues.”
Seems pretty reasonable in light of what we've witness Wednesday Jan 6th at the Capitol.
Why would we want to interpret this reaction as being an escalation or an all-out assault on the 1st Amendment?
Seems pretty reasonable in light of what we've witness Wednesday Jan 6th at the Capitol.
Why would we want to interpret this reaction as being an escalation or an all-out assault on the 1st Amendment?
My money is on urbit becoming a haven for these people. If you're constantly getting de-platformed, Urbit has a lot going for you. Decentralized, unregulated, unmoderated chat that’s hard to get into and fully anonymous, with a "burn it down" attitude throughout. I've been in there, they already welcome similar types. Symbolic imagery in the form of "sigils" already is a way to show support for certain concepts/places/people in a highly reproducible but obscure way. It really feels like it's only a matter of time.
You're already seeing it with tweets like this from within the community: https://twitter.com/default_friend/status/134769644628863386...
You're already seeing it with tweets like this from within the community: https://twitter.com/default_friend/status/134769644628863386...
The only things that take off are those that are beyond easy technically for the end user. Thats why this will never work at least in mass.
I agree that this is the one thing I'm unsure about. But: a lot of people once said this same argument about cryptocurrency and were amazed at how technically literate drug dealers could actually be, given the right incentives.
Regardless, as of recently they are making everything a one-click process: https://tlon.io
Regardless, as of recently they are making everything a one-click process: https://tlon.io
Extremely obscure dark corners of the web have always existed. They're not novel, and in general they have not been particularly dangerous as their niche is extremely small.
I hope you're right.
When I was 10 I could already find The Anarchists' Cookbook on newsgroups trivially. Back then it was trivial to find thoroughly illegal porn, racist forums, and all sorts of things that never decanted into the current state of affairs.
Crypto only got popular when it became easy. Before Coinbase and some others nobody outside of the nerds or darkweb was talking about crypto. Even now most people don’t understand it even though they’ve heard of it.
One side effect is that these technologies very quickly only become used by the people who really need it. Crypto in general has a huge stigma of being used by drug dealers, money launderers, and the like.
Urbit looks gimicky. Maybe something you can buy an SD card for a Raspberry Pi for or something simple enough would be far more likely to become popular, especially if you sell a ready to run setup. Imagine more people running their own Fediverse instances.
I don't disagree, but for what it's worth, they are recently making it a lot easier to get on: https://tlon.io
The example on the page "Art Discussion" is so cringe.
They know exactly what kind of crowd free speech first platforms draws. And it most definitely isn't someone discussing the Q3 results of their art gallery or the merits of Hoffmann's art style.
They know exactly what kind of crowd free speech first platforms draws. And it most definitely isn't someone discussing the Q3 results of their art gallery or the merits of Hoffmann's art style.
Yep. BTC boys will be in for a rude awakening when the all-seeing eye turns their way.
'Deplatforming' isn't effective as a strategy if the platform/medium/resource isn't exclusive or scarce in some way. Twitter/Facebook are virtual social-media monopolies. Android/App Store platforms are distribution monopolies for mobile Apps.
Hosting companies? ISPs? Book publishers? Not so much, although things aren't moving in the right direction on those fronts. Cloud platforms come to mind.
Hosting companies? ISPs? Book publishers? Not so much, although things aren't moving in the right direction on those fronts. Cloud platforms come to mind.
> Twitter/Facebook are virtual social-media monopolies
People repeat this a lot which is ironic because they’re doing it on HN. Or Reddit. Or Disqus. Or innumerable other special interest forums.
I don’t even have an FB/Twitter account but spend plenty of time interacting online.
People repeat this a lot which is ironic because they’re doing it on HN. Or Reddit. Or Disqus. Or innumerable other special interest forums.
I don’t even have an FB/Twitter account but spend plenty of time interacting online.
Generally, to be interesting for anti-trust legislation, a company does not need to have absolute control of the market. It needs to have just enough not to worry about competition. Which is a position where Twitter/Facebook are. They tend to acquire all interesting startups that could threaten them.
Define “the market” though. Why is it that tik tok can not exist and suddenly become a huge phenomenon in just a few years and Facebook can do nothing about it?
That to me clearly says that FB doesn’t have a monopoly unless you define the market to be so tightly focused on what they control it becomes tautological
That to me clearly says that FB doesn’t have a monopoly unless you define the market to be so tightly focused on what they control it becomes tautological
Your comment is prescient, I think. The race against the clock has begun. If we haven't seen the last of these extremist groups, then they're on the fast track to the crypto underbelly of the internet (whether they realize that or not). I hope the inevitable federal and international crackdown sees wide success before these groups go dark.
Just the more reason for the government to crack down on anonymized speech and transactions.
It has already escalated. AWS is a hosting company and is booting off Parler.
It's due to extreme virtue signaling, basically cancel culture. These companies have to behave alongside the social pressure or else they're going to lose revenue.
I didn’t think “don’t lynch the Vice President” was an extreme position, but maybe I’m out of touch
Literally everyone clutching their pearls over this seems to ignore this. Were people under the impression it was reasonable to plot the assassination of the Vice President of the United States on social media sites?
Parler spends most of its moderation effort removing accounts of leftists who argue or make fun of right-wingers on that site. Someone who never even posted anything got their account banned over a screenshot. Yet they refuse to remove calls of violence against elected officials?
I don't even like Mike Pence. But I don't think he should die! He should just retire!
Parler spends most of its moderation effort removing accounts of leftists who argue or make fun of right-wingers on that site. Someone who never even posted anything got their account banned over a screenshot. Yet they refuse to remove calls of violence against elected officials?
I don't even like Mike Pence. But I don't think he should die! He should just retire!
Shouldn’t those offenders face jailtime instead of censorship when inciting violence? To not see the darkness might be worse as you don’t then see the effects of things. Maybe get a psychologist involved, some happy pills and the offenders can make US better instead of being a tax burden?
> Shouldn’t those offenders face jailtime instead of censorship when inciting violence?
How can they face jail, if they are FBI operatives, acting on direct orders?
I means, are we supposed to believe, that FBI — the same FBI that surveils entirety of Internet and have backdoors in FAANG — fails to catch a whiff of ongoing revolts?! And police just yields Capitol to bunch of protesters?!? And they say, that Russian FSB is heavy on theatrics...
How can they face jail, if they are FBI operatives, acting on direct orders?
I means, are we supposed to believe, that FBI — the same FBI that surveils entirety of Internet and have backdoors in FAANG — fails to catch a whiff of ongoing revolts?! And police just yields Capitol to bunch of protesters?!? And they say, that Russian FSB is heavy on theatrics...
But that doesn't answer the question, that just shifts the immediate problem to "we need to fix our law enforcement".
I don't see how you can look at the United State's incredible incarceration rate and decide "Well we need to put more people in prison"
I would say Amazon removing Parler due to a TOS violation is preferable to locking up thousands of people in federal prison.
I would say Amazon removing Parler due to a TOS violation is preferable to locking up thousands of people in federal prison.
You're not. The near ubiquitous rebuttal I keep reading to the actions of Twitter, Apple, etc. are juvenile slippery slope fallacies.
And that the VP is even from their own party makes it even more absurd.
They can ban individual accounts calling for violence (which happens on both the extreme left and extreme right). But it's only socially acceptable to ban one of those, the other gets a free ride.
No. What is this garbage whataboutism of "both the extreme left and extreme right"?
People are trying to have civil discussions and you are using inciteful language calling their argument "garbage".
Would you agree that it is Twitter and Facebook's responsibility to ban all BLM-affiliated groups? After all they have organized numerous events that involved mass rioting that resulted in billions of Dollars in damage, many deaths, and disruption to the lives of hundreds of thousands. In many cases, politicians like AOC or news pundits like Don Lemon have condoned this violence, and even encouraged more such action. At times they have gaslighted us by claiming those events were "mostly peaceful" even though there is evidence to the contrary showing criminality far larger in scale than the recent capitol riot (example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/fires-light-...). Those individuals and groups who organized, incited, and participated in such events were not reprimanded and not banned.
So why are they all given a pass? It's because these tech companies are comprised mostly of left-leaning staff and are willing to now exercise their power against everyone else. Until Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon deplatform every single person and group involved in the hundreds of events in 2020 that involved criminal acts, these new acts of censorship will remain discriminatory and unacceptable.
So why are they all given a pass? It's because these tech companies are comprised mostly of left-leaning staff and are willing to now exercise their power against everyone else. Until Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon deplatform every single person and group involved in the hundreds of events in 2020 that involved criminal acts, these new acts of censorship will remain discriminatory and unacceptable.
You don't think the radical left is a problem that the far right is feeding off of? Then the cycle goes on. They both feed off each other.
No, I don't.
And I frankly don't care much for your example. My grandfather was a Pole who had to fight Nazi invaders, and I have no reservations about him having to put a few bullets over them.
Nazis and fascists do not want a free and fair society. They delight in the violence of it and have no interest in a marketplace of ideas.
And I frankly don't care much for your example. My grandfather was a Pole who had to fight Nazi invaders, and I have no reservations about him having to put a few bullets over them.
Nazis and fascists do not want a free and fair society. They delight in the violence of it and have no interest in a marketplace of ideas.
The radical left is a problem in Seattle as they are terrorizing the Capitol Hill neighborhood.
Don't take my word for it. Listen to community activist Victoria Beach explain how she is upset for them terrorizing the area and hijacking the Black Lives Matter movement.
https://twitter.com/choeshow/status/1345184414016278528
https://twitter.com/choeshow/status/1345192831602679809
Don't take my word for it. Listen to community activist Victoria Beach explain how she is upset for them terrorizing the area and hijacking the Black Lives Matter movement.
https://twitter.com/choeshow/status/1345184414016278528
https://twitter.com/choeshow/status/1345192831602679809
apta_(1)
The "virtue" of totally unmoderated speech is just another value you hold that you're misleadingly not categorizing as a "virtue": You're doing it right now.
The very idea of "virtue signaling" is delusional. There is no practical difference between twitter's intent and their action here.
The very idea of "virtue signaling" is delusional. There is no practical difference between twitter's intent and their action here.
[deleted]
Yes, this is how companies are supposed to work. There are plenty of examples of conservatives trying to “cancel” companies for some perceived transgression as well.
There was a thread I saw on thedonald.win - a popular pro-Trump self-hosted Reddit fornicate - where a commenter stated that Twitter's action of banning Trump itself was an act of inciting violence. The problem is I'm not sure you can reason with illogic like that, especially people who're angry and have been manipulated for years to decades to more or less blindly hate, lacking critical thinking and/or integrity behind their thinking - and will more than likely be quickly ban if calmly pointing out the definition of inciting, and likewise pointing out that Twitter is a private platform - and the internet is reflexively neutral in America.
You're correct though the deplatforming will be inflammatory, but the self-made bubble filter these communities of like-minded people are already on a runaway train that's only going to stop when real world circumstances don't allow them to just ban the confrontation digitally, when reality will hit them.
As I posted elsewhere, there's a lot of healing necessary due to multi-generational dis-ease progression - healing to open people's hearts and minds, so they can develop their critical thinking and logic that's influenced by the heart to develop empathy; I discuss this further in a comment from yesterday - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25702673
You're correct though the deplatforming will be inflammatory, but the self-made bubble filter these communities of like-minded people are already on a runaway train that's only going to stop when real world circumstances don't allow them to just ban the confrontation digitally, when reality will hit them.
As I posted elsewhere, there's a lot of healing necessary due to multi-generational dis-ease progression - healing to open people's hearts and minds, so they can develop their critical thinking and logic that's influenced by the heart to develop empathy; I discuss this further in a comment from yesterday - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25702673
Even though i agree with you and, in this particular case I have a hard time sympathising with Parler. After recent events and posts calling for more violence and the response of the enforcement agency last time despite having known that MAGA goons would try to disrupt the vote, I cannot think of another solution than what the tech companies are doing. Just to provide context, this is coming from a person who strongly believes these tech companies must be broken down. The events at the capitol have made me angry and the fact that 70 million people support this is just disappointing.
What if we simply said that what tech companies are doing may be the right thing in this case, but it really shouldn't be up to them to decide.
IMO these actions are coming too late, which shows that Google, Apple, Amazon, etc aren't responsible enough to have this kind of control.
IMO these actions are coming too late, which shows that Google, Apple, Amazon, etc aren't responsible enough to have this kind of control.
> What if we simply said that what tech companies are doing may be the right thing in this case, but it really shouldn't be up to them to decide.
I think the exact opposite: it may be wrong (I don't think it is, but I think there is legitimate debate), but it absolutely should be up to them to decide the rules for their platforms.
I think the exact opposite: it may be wrong (I don't think it is, but I think there is legitimate debate), but it absolutely should be up to them to decide the rules for their platforms.
I don't think it's right that a few unelected old men have the right to tell me what I can and cannot say on the internet. I want to live in a democracy, not a corporate oligarchy.
When a platform is as ubiquitous as Facebook (for example), it's not just their platform that's effected by their decisions. We're all directly effected by how they act or fail to act.
When a platform is as ubiquitous as Facebook (for example), it's not just their platform that's effected by their decisions. We're all directly effected by how they act or fail to act.
It seems to be that these platforms were quite outrageously accepting any content at all being published on their platforms, including direct personal threats and incitements to violence.
If these groups want to not be deplatformed every few years, they ought to moderate the content. That seems to be all Apple is asking for here - just moderate out the illegal content and you can come back.
That only seems hard to do for conservative groups - everyone else seems to at least try to moderate, even if they do it unevenly or not quickly enough, they try. These deplatformed companies and actors don't ever seem to even try to moderate.
I don't feel bad for them, personally.
If these groups want to not be deplatformed every few years, they ought to moderate the content. That seems to be all Apple is asking for here - just moderate out the illegal content and you can come back.
That only seems hard to do for conservative groups - everyone else seems to at least try to moderate, even if they do it unevenly or not quickly enough, they try. These deplatformed companies and actors don't ever seem to even try to moderate.
I don't feel bad for them, personally.
I understand your sentiment, but the thing to realize is that the point you’re responding to is about decentralization and whether this will be an accelerant for the transition to a more distributed tech ecosystem. It’s not about how anyone feels about the parties involved in any particular case.
I don't agree that there is the feedback loop that exists in the OP's post. Deplatforming is not some inescapable negative feedback loop that these people can't get out of. It is the result of criminal behavior. If the criminal behavior stops, the deplatforming stops.
We already have processes in our society to reduce and hopefully eliminate criminal actors.
We already have processes in our society to reduce and hopefully eliminate criminal actors.
I’ve said it before: I find this highly disturbing. Especially the sense in which it is coordinated. Amazon, Google and Apple acting together to shut down a platform that has been very clear about its stance on content moderation from the outset.
Free speech is not just any value. Sooner or later you will find yourself on the side of an issue where your speech will be attacked.
Then there is the always present double standard. Why did Twitter allow “Hang Mike Pence” to trend last night? Where are the suspensions and permanent bans?
Again, sooner or later we will all find ourselves on the other side of the double standard.
Free speech is not just any value. Sooner or later you will find yourself on the side of an issue where your speech will be attacked.
Then there is the always present double standard. Why did Twitter allow “Hang Mike Pence” to trend last night? Where are the suspensions and permanent bans?
Again, sooner or later we will all find ourselves on the other side of the double standard.
While I completely get the sentiment: I missed these complaints when platforms didn't grant ISIS free reign to spread their propaganda. Dealing in absolutes doesn't do the nuanced systems governing our reality justice, you should know that.
To illustrate: absolutely free speech would imply the right to harmfully agitate kids for whatever your cause is. Does it seem obvious that this is a bad idea? Then just extrapolate "kids are easy to manipulate" to "adults are mostly just older kids".
And btw, I know what it's like to be on the other side. That doesn't justify turning a blind eye to the madness that comes with absolute free speech.
Either you accept that a line has to be drawn somewhere, or you accept every consequence of absolute free speech. Which, imo, would be a terrible idea with 7 billion people just waiting to be gamed through their fears.
Don't get me wrong, I don't consider what we're seeing here unproblematic at all. I just don't consider absolute free speech to be unproblematic either, quite the opposite.
To illustrate: absolutely free speech would imply the right to harmfully agitate kids for whatever your cause is. Does it seem obvious that this is a bad idea? Then just extrapolate "kids are easy to manipulate" to "adults are mostly just older kids".
And btw, I know what it's like to be on the other side. That doesn't justify turning a blind eye to the madness that comes with absolute free speech.
Either you accept that a line has to be drawn somewhere, or you accept every consequence of absolute free speech. Which, imo, would be a terrible idea with 7 billion people just waiting to be gamed through their fears.
Don't get me wrong, I don't consider what we're seeing here unproblematic at all. I just don't consider absolute free speech to be unproblematic either, quite the opposite.
Actually they did. People were using facebook groups to post ISIS decapitations and recruit people. I even reported a few of these groups myself. Facebook never shut them down.
Remember those cases were Facebook was promoted to use violence and persecutions against religious minorities across the globe? And then after the investigations, Facebook just brushed it off as "oh, that, sorry we didn't know"?
Reddit was full on anti china rage exactly a year ago, so much so, that the moderators of the covid subgroups themselves started moderating it in a way that allowed for some objectivity one of the covid groups.
I guess the difference here is that Facebook, Twitter and Reddit who have been prospering with this poison are now at a point where they can no longer play the ignorance card, which is why they banned a certain individual.
The main contrast is that Parler's rhetoric is that they'll take all the discards from the other platforms.
Remember those cases were Facebook was promoted to use violence and persecutions against religious minorities across the globe? And then after the investigations, Facebook just brushed it off as "oh, that, sorry we didn't know"?
Reddit was full on anti china rage exactly a year ago, so much so, that the moderators of the covid subgroups themselves started moderating it in a way that allowed for some objectivity one of the covid groups.
I guess the difference here is that Facebook, Twitter and Reddit who have been prospering with this poison are now at a point where they can no longer play the ignorance card, which is why they banned a certain individual.
The main contrast is that Parler's rhetoric is that they'll take all the discards from the other platforms.
Twitter and Facebook have both been banning a lot of ISIS-related accounts. https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/ku6jdx/amazon_to_drop...
On FB, ISIS groups that I was a member of years ago were deleted. Don't interpret that as me being or wanting to become a member of ISIS. I simply wanted to see what propaganda they were spreading, and measure for myself how it compared to the MSM portrayal of such.
I haven’t considered this. Thank you for your perspective.
I don't support "absolutely" free speech either. A line has to be drawn. I think it should be drawn as narrow as possible.
If someone promotes a campaign to hunt down an individual and murder him/her; certainly I wouldn't blame anyone for taking that content down. I think we already have a good tool for where the line goes and that is the law. E.g. you can't recruit and plan for terrorism and you can't spread child pornography among other horrible things.
This is something else. This is a situation where three major companies use vague paragraphs in their terms and conditions to target a specific platform.
What's next? If Parler self-hosts, will demands come to ISPs to shut them down? Where does it end.
If someone promotes a campaign to hunt down an individual and murder him/her; certainly I wouldn't blame anyone for taking that content down. I think we already have a good tool for where the line goes and that is the law. E.g. you can't recruit and plan for terrorism and you can't spread child pornography among other horrible things.
This is something else. This is a situation where three major companies use vague paragraphs in their terms and conditions to target a specific platform.
What's next? If Parler self-hosts, will demands come to ISPs to shut them down? Where does it end.
> I missed these complaints when platforms didn't grant ISIS free reign to spread their propaganda.
They existed, it's just that it takes a lot of courage to speak out against deplatforming ISIS, so most people just stay silent in public. I was fairly outspoken about defending their right to expression, but that was only to "safe" groups of friends rather than the general public. (Of course, now that ISIS is basically dead I can be a bit more free with my words and admit to disliking them being censored)
Regarding your kids agitating example, as a society we already do plenty of brainwashing of kids, it's why our ideas of right and wrong are so different from 200 years back.
Also, we had near absolute free speech on most of the internet for most of the 2000s, so your fearmongering there rings hollow.
They existed, it's just that it takes a lot of courage to speak out against deplatforming ISIS, so most people just stay silent in public. I was fairly outspoken about defending their right to expression, but that was only to "safe" groups of friends rather than the general public. (Of course, now that ISIS is basically dead I can be a bit more free with my words and admit to disliking them being censored)
Regarding your kids agitating example, as a society we already do plenty of brainwashing of kids, it's why our ideas of right and wrong are so different from 200 years back.
Also, we had near absolute free speech on most of the internet for most of the 2000s, so your fearmongering there rings hollow.
The internet from the 2000s is not what the internet is now, and I cannot see any "fearmongering" (a loaded word these days) in the previous comment.
Your reply is not addressing the main point: that P believes there ought to be limits to free speech (imo also a completely obvious conclusion). P provides simple "Ad absurdum" examples for why that is. In you stating that kids are "brainwashed" elsewhere too is just engaging in whataboutism.
Can you explain why you think there is sufficient additional value in completely---absurdly so---free speech (as per P's scenarios, for example) over limiting obviously dangerous and detrimental speech? Obviously the crux lies in drawing the required boundary, which is the job of an educated society as a whole and might be in flux with the times.
Your reply is not addressing the main point: that P believes there ought to be limits to free speech (imo also a completely obvious conclusion). P provides simple "Ad absurdum" examples for why that is. In you stating that kids are "brainwashed" elsewhere too is just engaging in whataboutism.
Can you explain why you think there is sufficient additional value in completely---absurdly so---free speech (as per P's scenarios, for example) over limiting obviously dangerous and detrimental speech? Obviously the crux lies in drawing the required boundary, which is the job of an educated society as a whole and might be in flux with the times.
> Can you explain why you think there is sufficient additional value in completely---absurdly so---free speech (as per P's scenarios, for example) over limiting obviously dangerous and detrimental speech?
Not simply, no.
It's a very long (book sized) argument that I've been gradually making bits and pieces of over the years. I really wish I'd kept the little bits I'd type out in one forum or another so I could just point at that...
Though, for a fragment and possible intuition pump: the censoring is putting the cart before the horse. You need to determine whether something is dangerous or detrimental before banning it, but the act of censoring it or neighbouring ideas or the kind of people who espouse it prevents that very determination that ensures you aren't censoring true things. You also get all sorts of other effects like purity spirals and fights over which group gets to decide what is censored and groups then doing things even they admit is wrong in order to keep control of the censors ("it's worth a little lie to stop the nazis taking control").
EDIT: You're correct that the comment about kids isn't a full argument, it's an argument fragment that needs various other things to be held and explained in order to be complete. But there's no point in spending ages outlining it all unless I'm going to do so in a less transient medium like a blog post. So instead I post the fragment hoping it's the one piece the reader was missing for things to click.
Not simply, no.
It's a very long (book sized) argument that I've been gradually making bits and pieces of over the years. I really wish I'd kept the little bits I'd type out in one forum or another so I could just point at that...
Though, for a fragment and possible intuition pump: the censoring is putting the cart before the horse. You need to determine whether something is dangerous or detrimental before banning it, but the act of censoring it or neighbouring ideas or the kind of people who espouse it prevents that very determination that ensures you aren't censoring true things. You also get all sorts of other effects like purity spirals and fights over which group gets to decide what is censored and groups then doing things even they admit is wrong in order to keep control of the censors ("it's worth a little lie to stop the nazis taking control").
EDIT: You're correct that the comment about kids isn't a full argument, it's an argument fragment that needs various other things to be held and explained in order to be complete. But there's no point in spending ages outlining it all unless I'm going to do so in a less transient medium like a blog post. So instead I post the fragment hoping it's the one piece the reader was missing for things to click.
The ISIS comment is a great analogy. I've been very conflicted with all of this, but you've made a really good point. I guess we did already draw a line. I'm interested to see how that line moves or doesn't in the future now though. I have no idea how things will transpire, so I can only wait and see.
I'm trying to collect a list evidence on the criminal Trump to have something you can quickly point when refuting confused idiot relatives who support him, but I have not been able to follow everything that has been happening for the past few days, for various reasons.
Would you please provide a link to ex-president Trump inciting violence like ISIS? Lesser forms of agitation for violence is fine too.
Would you please provide a link to ex-president Trump inciting violence like ISIS? Lesser forms of agitation for violence is fine too.
I didn't equate Trumps actions to ISIS, I tried to illustrate that somewhere, a line needs to be drawn, and that there is apparently an established consensus for this (this being that no one complained about free speech when it wasn't granted to ISIS)
No, I completely understand that, but like I wrote, evidence of any form of inciting violence is enough, I just need something to point to to stop people from falsely claiming that people on the left are lying about their reasons for banning orange Hitler
Ah yes, think about the children.
Oh please, I was illustrating a point. The wide majority of people/"civilians" aren't capable to tell the difference between actual information and propaganda, and since the propaganda is designed to be more appealing, guess which one wins out - the fair player or the one that agitates? This isn't rocket science, you're just turning a blind eye to the consequences as if that helps your case.
Without commenting on the rest ...
> Then there is the always present double standard. Why did Twitter allow “Hang Mike Pence” to trend last night? Where are the suspensions and permanent bans?
Actually, they intervened and stopped it.
https://www.newsweek.com/twitter-stops-hang-mike-pence-trend...
Also note:
> Journalist Yashar Ali tweeted a screenshot of the topic trending, indicating that the phrase had been tweeted over 14,000 times. Ali noted that most people were "quot[ing] some of the insurrectionists" at the Capitol, rather than making direct threats against Pence. He wrote that the phrase "shouldn't be allowed to trend."
See also despite the URL: https://nypost.com/2021/01/09/twitter-allows-hang-mike-pence...
> “We blocked the phrase and other variations of it from trending. We want trends to promote healthy discussions on Twitter,” a company spokesperson told The Post. “There are Rules for trends — if we identify accounts that violate these rules, we’ll take enforcement action.”
> Then there is the always present double standard. Why did Twitter allow “Hang Mike Pence” to trend last night? Where are the suspensions and permanent bans?
Actually, they intervened and stopped it.
https://www.newsweek.com/twitter-stops-hang-mike-pence-trend...
Also note:
> Journalist Yashar Ali tweeted a screenshot of the topic trending, indicating that the phrase had been tweeted over 14,000 times. Ali noted that most people were "quot[ing] some of the insurrectionists" at the Capitol, rather than making direct threats against Pence. He wrote that the phrase "shouldn't be allowed to trend."
See also despite the URL: https://nypost.com/2021/01/09/twitter-allows-hang-mike-pence...
> “We blocked the phrase and other variations of it from trending. We want trends to promote healthy discussions on Twitter,” a company spokesperson told The Post. “There are Rules for trends — if we identify accounts that violate these rules, we’ll take enforcement action.”
As long as the public square is privately owned we're going to have problems.
I think it's great these companies have stopped supporting Parler. The problem is that so much power has devolved to these entirely unaccountable organizations that it feels like an infringement of free speech.
We are going to need a stable place for important discourse and that will require carefully designed governance structures, transparency, and independence that no ad supported company can possibly provide.
I think it's great these companies have stopped supporting Parler. The problem is that so much power has devolved to these entirely unaccountable organizations that it feels like an infringement of free speech.
We are going to need a stable place for important discourse and that will require carefully designed governance structures, transparency, and independence that no ad supported company can possibly provide.
Or, don't have any structure and let people host their own little public square themselves. Little mom and pop nazi/terrorist boards on smaller providers all over the web.
Twitter is kinda great that I can post direct to the whole world. But that requires a bit of discipline. As an affect I somewhat think through what I'm posting. Much like what we all try to do here.
Everyone around here pines for the older internet. And one of the ways to get it back is to have standards, that are visible and enforced on larger platforms so people know, that speech has consequences.
And if people want to do their seditious terrorist thing. They can host it themselves and manage all the risk.
No public square has every been as big as some of these sites. So maybe the metaphor doesn't work.
Twitter is kinda great that I can post direct to the whole world. But that requires a bit of discipline. As an affect I somewhat think through what I'm posting. Much like what we all try to do here.
Everyone around here pines for the older internet. And one of the ways to get it back is to have standards, that are visible and enforced on larger platforms so people know, that speech has consequences.
And if people want to do their seditious terrorist thing. They can host it themselves and manage all the risk.
No public square has every been as big as some of these sites. So maybe the metaphor doesn't work.
I don't know about that, I don't remember any real consequences or standards on the early Internet. When it was a technological novelty there weren't organized and well funded efforts to posting in bad faith. I guess it depends how early you're talking about.
We're in new territory here,and we need new institutions, new standards.
We're in new territory here,and we need new institutions, new standards.
> As long as the public square is privately owned we're going to have problems.
There is a roofed mall with like 40 stores where I live where three nurses were protesting shoppers crowding. The mall forced them to stand outside the mall.
I mean physical "public squares" are not what they used to be and it is a problem.
There is a roofed mall with like 40 stores where I live where three nurses were protesting shoppers crowding. The mall forced them to stand outside the mall.
I mean physical "public squares" are not what they used to be and it is a problem.
The first battle of the Second american civil war has happened. Every tech company has to choose a side.
Instead of a war over slavery, this is a war over shared reality or personal echo chambers, and most of the tech companies have been fighting against shared reality.
Please choose wisely and soon. Unified reality or seperate ones.
People are planning to overthrow the government of the country you live in, "in your house".
Instead of a war over slavery, this is a war over shared reality or personal echo chambers, and most of the tech companies have been fighting against shared reality.
Please choose wisely and soon. Unified reality or seperate ones.
People are planning to overthrow the government of the country you live in, "in your house".
This seems very hyperbolic. I honestly think 99% of Americans are too lazy to even show up to the "civil war".
Isn't this the hidden hand of Adam Smith? If FAANGT doesn't ban/remove the fascists then they face huge commercial pressure - if they do then the commercial pressure (from the other side) is much less. The market is speaking - the CEO's of these companies have decided that the tide has turned and it's in their shareholder's interest to ban.
I think this is a terrible way to run society - no company should have the scale or power of these companies, but it turns out that this is what can happen if you run things by a market. To argue that they shouldn't do this is basically arguing against a market economy!
I think this is a terrible way to run society - no company should have the scale or power of these companies, but it turns out that this is what can happen if you run things by a market. To argue that they shouldn't do this is basically arguing against a market economy!
The market "spoke" by creating the alternatives to Twitter/Reddit/Youtube/etc. The established players are now using their market-share and I guess collusion to basically kick their competitors off the internet and make their functioning more difficult.
I think a good analogy might be to call "acceptable speech" a form of "regulation". Traditionally, established large companies are fine with additional regulation because it makes it more costly for small competition to operate and compete with them. Likewise with expecting and making it "the norm" for platforms to police their content and get in to trouble for bad content, they make the operating cost of smaller competitors higher (if those competitors choose to play by the same rules).
Right now we're seeing that the smaller competitors are choosing not to play by the same rules, which I think is rightfully making the established companies nervous. From a company perspective it makes them worry about their market share. And also from a personal perspective, the individuals inside those companies worry that the alternatives will allow movements that they don't like to grow.
I think a good analogy might be to call "acceptable speech" a form of "regulation". Traditionally, established large companies are fine with additional regulation because it makes it more costly for small competition to operate and compete with them. Likewise with expecting and making it "the norm" for platforms to police their content and get in to trouble for bad content, they make the operating cost of smaller competitors higher (if those competitors choose to play by the same rules).
Right now we're seeing that the smaller competitors are choosing not to play by the same rules, which I think is rightfully making the established companies nervous. From a company perspective it makes them worry about their market share. And also from a personal perspective, the individuals inside those companies worry that the alternatives will allow movements that they don't like to grow.
I'm not saying Google, Apple and Amazon have broken the law. If Parler sues them, then the courts can decide that.
I'm just expressing why I find this disturbing; as you seem to too.
In the long run, the market will solve this problem by creating alternatives. It is just a matter of time.
I can still express why I think these companies are taking the wrong actions and believe that they have the right to take those decisions. And that there is sensible alternative to a market economy.
I'm just expressing why I find this disturbing; as you seem to too.
In the long run, the market will solve this problem by creating alternatives. It is just a matter of time.
I can still express why I think these companies are taking the wrong actions and believe that they have the right to take those decisions. And that there is sensible alternative to a market economy.
I really don't like the term "coordinated" here. Seems to imply intent, and maybe a powerful actor pulling the strings.
To me the situation feels a lot more like 4 friends sitting together...
friend1: hey, you still owe me money, pay me back!
friend2: huh yeah me as well!
friend3: me as well and planned to pay me back tomorrow. will you even have enough left? better dow it now!
Even with this just happening organically on the spur of the moment, triggered by his own behavior, it would be easy for friend4 to feel like there was an orchestrated setup...
To me the situation feels a lot more like 4 friends sitting together...
friend1: hey, you still owe me money, pay me back!
friend2: huh yeah me as well!
friend3: me as well and planned to pay me back tomorrow. will you even have enough left? better dow it now!
Even with this just happening organically on the spur of the moment, triggered by his own behavior, it would be easy for friend4 to feel like there was an orchestrated setup...
For me, closing down “bad enough” actors is a good thing, but the big question is “Who’s going to decide who are those, and what’s ‘bad enough’?”.
I don’t think the answer to that should be “a few people at large companies that are, at best, kept at bay by rich people buying or selling the company’s shares” (their customers have too little choice to exert much pressure. I also don’t see protests at BigCo’s headquarters or angry mobs storming BigCo HQ to force them to change course (other ways to exert pressure), but maybe I’m not looking far enough into the future)
These large companies act as judge, jury and executioner, and don’t allow appeals.
I don’t think the answer to that should be “a few people at large companies that are, at best, kept at bay by rich people buying or selling the company’s shares” (their customers have too little choice to exert much pressure. I also don’t see protests at BigCo’s headquarters or angry mobs storming BigCo HQ to force them to change course (other ways to exert pressure), but maybe I’m not looking far enough into the future)
These large companies act as judge, jury and executioner, and don’t allow appeals.
It looks like “Hang Mike Pence” trended shortly and then disappeared.
That sounds like a consistent standard, and effective moderation, does it not?
Twitter was willing and able to shut down a credible, widespread incitement to violence. Parler was not.
That sounds like a consistent standard, and effective moderation, does it not?
Twitter was willing and able to shut down a credible, widespread incitement to violence. Parler was not.
I think there's a useful divide between "what should a platform allow" vs "what should an app store allow" vs "what should fundamental infrastructure for the web allow"
While I think Apple and Google are within their rights to remove an entry point to an app that has incited violence over the past week, I'm not sure I feel the same about Amazon / aws (or GCP if it had been hosted on Google).
If you remove Facebook from the app store, we could all still access the web frontend, just not the app.
Banning a site from ec2, though, feels more like Cloudflare removing ddos protection.
I don't know what was on parler. I don't know how bad it was. My thesis, though (and I think stratechery/Ben Thompson would agree), is that Amazon should require a much higher bar before banning something from ec2 than either Apple or Google do.
Fwiw, I don't think this is "coordinated" so much as big companies responding simultaneously to potential (or already ignited) PR fires
While I think Apple and Google are within their rights to remove an entry point to an app that has incited violence over the past week, I'm not sure I feel the same about Amazon / aws (or GCP if it had been hosted on Google).
If you remove Facebook from the app store, we could all still access the web frontend, just not the app.
Banning a site from ec2, though, feels more like Cloudflare removing ddos protection.
I don't know what was on parler. I don't know how bad it was. My thesis, though (and I think stratechery/Ben Thompson would agree), is that Amazon should require a much higher bar before banning something from ec2 than either Apple or Google do.
Fwiw, I don't think this is "coordinated" so much as big companies responding simultaneously to potential (or already ignited) PR fires
Promotion of violence is NOT part of your free speech rights though. If I go to a bar and start loudly suggesting I’m going to attempt to kill someone, surely the police if they hear about this will step in to find out if the threat is credible. Now if my bar has people discussing murdering people all the time, it’s become my bar that the police are going to close down. Freedom of speech has always been about criticism of government, it’s not a right to be able to say whatever mad illegal stuff pops into your head.
> Why did Twitter allow “Hang Mike Pence” to trend last night?
I happened to look at that trend. Nobody that I saw were actually suggesting people do it - they were quoting (or referring to) what was being said by those at the Capitol, and then commenting on it.
I don’t see a double standard for those cases, although they did subsequently remove it the trend. Possibly because some people might have been calling for it in the “latest” tab - not a fun place looking at tweets outside the featured tab...
I happened to look at that trend. Nobody that I saw were actually suggesting people do it - they were quoting (or referring to) what was being said by those at the Capitol, and then commenting on it.
I don’t see a double standard for those cases, although they did subsequently remove it the trend. Possibly because some people might have been calling for it in the “latest” tab - not a fun place looking at tweets outside the featured tab...
the world seems to have changed, none could have imagined a situation like this some ten years ago; what is happening now would be equivalent to myspace stopping facebook by forcing isp's to cut them off the line. If looks as if the big companies forgot where they came from.
Americans seem to feel much the same way about censorship these days as they do about their own personal privacy:
"It doesn't affect me or my life/views presently, so I don't see a reason to object to it." - The "I have nothing to hide" sort of thing.
"It doesn't affect me or my life/views presently, so I don't see a reason to object to it." - The "I have nothing to hide" sort of thing.
Most Americans are actively hostile to privacy, not just ambivalent. If you tell them, "Alice doesn't carry a cellphone, because she thinks it shares her real time location with advertisers, hedge funds, private investigators, debt collectors, bounty hunters, and the government," most will conclude that (a) Alice is mentally ill, or (b) Alice is a degenerate criminal. Either way, Alice needs to be investigated. That means the state needs to interview her colleagues and neighbors, and subpoena her bank and medical records.
The argument "you will find yourself on the other side" is weak. First, it's just a threat in disguise. Second, it's a weak threat because it's hard to realistically imagine Besos or Cook trying to start another Parler.
What's happening is just morally wrong. Not because the situation may flip, but because there's a higher moral law to things and what's happening contradicts this law. Even if your side appears to be winning, it's actually losing, because it's losing its soul.
What's happening is just morally wrong. Not because the situation may flip, but because there's a higher moral law to things and what's happening contradicts this law. Even if your side appears to be winning, it's actually losing, because it's losing its soul.
Imagine there are countries in developed world where there is no unlimited free speech. Where Nazism is banned. And yet rarely anyone will find himself 'on the other side of the double standard'. It is even rare for proper neo-nazis.
Free speech is just utopia.
Free speech is just utopia.
"Hang Mike Pence" was temporary. But there are plenty of other examples.
I'm old enough to remember Kathy Griffin and Trump's severed head.
Or "If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire fucking thing down". https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330
How is that not the same?
Regardless of whether there policy should or shouldn't be to remove violence, the bias in how they apply it is very clear.
EDIT: Feel free to downvote. Don't hold back.
I'm old enough to remember Kathy Griffin and Trump's severed head.
Or "If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire fucking thing down". https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330
How is that not the same?
Regardless of whether there policy should or shouldn't be to remove violence, the bias in how they apply it is very clear.
EDIT: Feel free to downvote. Don't hold back.
It's not that complicated, when you incite violent insurrection against the government and people follow through with it, you get shut down. It's not like any of these platforms had a choice given Trump's violent rhetoric and history of lying.
> It's not that complicated, when you incite violent insurrection against the government
We support people rising up against what we consider bad governments using these platforms, and get quite angry when they’re banned though.
(Not picking sides, just trying to understand the nuance)
We support people rising up against what we consider bad governments using these platforms, and get quite angry when they’re banned though.
(Not picking sides, just trying to understand the nuance)
> nuance
Do I understand your equation correctly? On one side are people under oppressive governments. And they are not oppressed only because they do not have access to free speech. On the other we have people that use baseless claims to justify violence.
Obviously this is not what you had in mind. But It can be perceived in that way.
I guess there were discussions like this after beer hall putch.
Do I understand your equation correctly? On one side are people under oppressive governments. And they are not oppressed only because they do not have access to free speech. On the other we have people that use baseless claims to justify violence.
Obviously this is not what you had in mind. But It can be perceived in that way.
I guess there were discussions like this after beer hall putch.
There’s no overall rule that says people fighting governments is always good. Trump is trying to overturn democracy and create a bad government. The difference is that in one case the people are rising up against their dictator, and the other is a multimillionaire who is angry he lost.
I understand that this is the difference but how can you possibly live with the idea that these platforms are ok to incite revolution/insurrection in only specific circumstances?
What’s the criteria?
If it’s a successful election; then the annexation of Crimea is legal and should not come under fire by these platforms.
Additionally, the Ukrainian government should not be permitted. (They were organising via Twitter and Facebook)
I don’t like rules which are like “things I don’t agree with are not permitted but things I do agree with are”- like the people who refused to bake gay wedding cakes should not be unhappy with trump being deplatformed from Twitter. I dislike hypocrisy so I’m trying to figure a rule in my head for this.
What’s the criteria?
If it’s a successful election; then the annexation of Crimea is legal and should not come under fire by these platforms.
Additionally, the Ukrainian government should not be permitted. (They were organising via Twitter and Facebook)
I don’t like rules which are like “things I don’t agree with are not permitted but things I do agree with are”- like the people who refused to bake gay wedding cakes should not be unhappy with trump being deplatformed from Twitter. I dislike hypocrisy so I’m trying to figure a rule in my head for this.
This is kind of the problem: Twitter will invite a revolution whether your country needs it or not.
Can you quote specific rhetoric which was violent? Twitter did not name a single tweet or written or spoken sentence from Trump where he advocated for violence in their blog post where they announced the ban (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...).
I do agree Trump has a huge history of lying, and was continuing to lie with his claims about the election. However, I find the claim that Trump "incited" the riot to be unfounded and am shocked to see everyone use that word so casually. If and when this goes to court, I guarantee they will not be able to prove that Trump incited a violent riot simply because the evidence does not support it.
Remember, there were tens of thousands of attendees in DC in support of Trump, across several separate events. To my knowledge, all these events had applied for permits and were granted them, allowing the city and other agencies (like National Park Service) to plan their response and presence.
At the capitol, a few hundred people came onto the capitol grounds. Of those, an even smaller subset engaged in theft, vandalism, and other violence. But the vast majority of people that came to DC this last week for Trump did not engage in violence. So how can it be claimed that Trump incited violence? He made false claims about the election, and a small number of people took those claims and used it as justification for criminality. But to me that seems like the fault of those who participated and not really a justification for banning Trump.
I do agree Trump has a huge history of lying, and was continuing to lie with his claims about the election. However, I find the claim that Trump "incited" the riot to be unfounded and am shocked to see everyone use that word so casually. If and when this goes to court, I guarantee they will not be able to prove that Trump incited a violent riot simply because the evidence does not support it.
Remember, there were tens of thousands of attendees in DC in support of Trump, across several separate events. To my knowledge, all these events had applied for permits and were granted them, allowing the city and other agencies (like National Park Service) to plan their response and presence.
At the capitol, a few hundred people came onto the capitol grounds. Of those, an even smaller subset engaged in theft, vandalism, and other violence. But the vast majority of people that came to DC this last week for Trump did not engage in violence. So how can it be claimed that Trump incited violence? He made false claims about the election, and a small number of people took those claims and used it as justification for criminality. But to me that seems like the fault of those who participated and not really a justification for banning Trump.
“After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”
You know, you aren’t going to catch Trump say “please go down there and break in and kill people”. That would be directing violence.
But given the context of everything, did he incite violence? You’re saying I’m misinterpreting Trump. Given the situation he’s set up, is it a surprise at all that many others might have interpreted what he said in the same way?
If a BLM organizer says “lets go out there and protest peacefully” and then follows up with “but you know that Footlocker on Main and 34th? We definitely shouldn’t burn the place down. But you know, the owners of that place are awful people. We need to show strength. They are evil. But don’t burn it down. But really they’re evil”, I’d say that was inciting violence too.
But given the context of everything, did he incite violence? You’re saying I’m misinterpreting Trump. Given the situation he’s set up, is it a surprise at all that many others might have interpreted what he said in the same way?
If a BLM organizer says “lets go out there and protest peacefully” and then follows up with “but you know that Footlocker on Main and 34th? We definitely shouldn’t burn the place down. But you know, the owners of that place are awful people. We need to show strength. They are evil. But don’t burn it down. But really they’re evil”, I’d say that was inciting violence too.
Please do correct me if I am reading this differently from how you read it. To me, this looks like someone saying "we're going to go protest", which people have said many thousands of times in the last year. It does not advocate for violence or anything illegal there. The last bit where he says "you’ll never take back our country with weakness", seems to be misinterpreted by some - what Trump was saying is that the legislators who weren't challenging the results were being weak, and that to win [the election] you have to show strength.
All of this reads to me like very typical motivational bluster that accompanies situations like protests. BLM organizers also use phrasings like "we're going to take back our city" and "show them our power" and so on.
All of this reads to me like very typical motivational bluster that accompanies situations like protests. BLM organizers also use phrasings like "we're going to take back our city" and "show them our power" and so on.
To put this quote in context, I’ll also add that before Trump addressed the crowd, Giuliani said "If we are wrong we will be made fools of, but if we're right a lot of them will go to jail. So let's have trial by combat."
Trump asked people to come. He’s spent the last several weeks asserting that the election was stolen. They stole your vote. Saying these people are corrupt and ruining this country. His personal lawyer tells the crowd that they should have trial by combat. Trump says they need march on the Capital and show strength. Be strong. Take back our country.
Yeah, that’s incitement.
Yeah, that’s incitement.
To balance things out, consider also that 20 minutes into his speech, Trump said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." I think it's important to take a charitable interpretation of what your opponents say, and to not assume malice. It's also worth keeping Hanlon's Razor in mind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor).
Regarding the "trial by combat" line - an article on Giulani's speech (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio...) describes it like this:
> While baselessly claiming that Democrats won elections because of fraud, Mr Giuliani bellowed to the crowd: “Who hides evidence? Criminals hide evidence, not honest people!”
> He continued: “Over the next ten days, we get to see the machines that are crooked, the ballots that are fraudulent, and if we're wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we're right, a lot of them will go to jail.”
> Mr Giuliani then suddenly yelled: "Let's have trial by combat!" to lacklustre cheers from the crowd.
To me this does not sound like a call to violence. It sounds like a bad joke or poorly-worded bluster or an attempt at hyperbole. Giuliani was quick to condemn the riot at the capitol, for what it's worth (https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1347149858000556032).
Regarding the "trial by combat" line - an article on Giulani's speech (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio...) describes it like this:
> While baselessly claiming that Democrats won elections because of fraud, Mr Giuliani bellowed to the crowd: “Who hides evidence? Criminals hide evidence, not honest people!”
> He continued: “Over the next ten days, we get to see the machines that are crooked, the ballots that are fraudulent, and if we're wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we're right, a lot of them will go to jail.”
> Mr Giuliani then suddenly yelled: "Let's have trial by combat!" to lacklustre cheers from the crowd.
To me this does not sound like a call to violence. It sounds like a bad joke or poorly-worded bluster or an attempt at hyperbole. Giuliani was quick to condemn the riot at the capitol, for what it's worth (https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1347149858000556032).
This happens a lot with Trump. He implies contradictory things at the same time and then says he doesn’t mean it that way when confronted. Meanwhile, everyone who was primed to hear the horrible/terrible/deplorable version of the message heard exactly what they wanted to hear.
He also does this with Tweets. Oh that retweet of that white supremecist, just a re-tweet. Doesn’t mean anything. Except there are good people on both sides.
But it does mean something when you are the President and you have a large number of followers.
People have been getting death threats for weeks about the stolen election. The only thing this President has done is continue to amp up the lies and demands of his followers to do something, anything.
The world isn’t a programming language, there’s no state machine and no precise instruction set. It is full of hints and innuendo.
Please interpret Donald Trump in context.
He also does this with Tweets. Oh that retweet of that white supremecist, just a re-tweet. Doesn’t mean anything. Except there are good people on both sides.
But it does mean something when you are the President and you have a large number of followers.
People have been getting death threats for weeks about the stolen election. The only thing this President has done is continue to amp up the lies and demands of his followers to do something, anything.
The world isn’t a programming language, there’s no state machine and no precise instruction set. It is full of hints and innuendo.
Please interpret Donald Trump in context.
I think you can assess his intent and his state of mind from his contemporaneous statements during the occupation of the capital.
He asked the rioters to “remain peaceful”. As in, by all means, the thing you did to break into the building, that’s OK, but be peaceful. And by the way, the election was stolen from me and I love you.
It was only later, after sustained pressure that Trump told the rioters to leave.
This is like the police after being called to an in-progress home invasion telling the invaders to not break anything while in the house, and by the way we really like you.
He asked the rioters to “remain peaceful”. As in, by all means, the thing you did to break into the building, that’s OK, but be peaceful. And by the way, the election was stolen from me and I love you.
It was only later, after sustained pressure that Trump told the rioters to leave.
This is like the police after being called to an in-progress home invasion telling the invaders to not break anything while in the house, and by the way we really like you.
[deleted]
The percentage of people who became rioters is irrelevant.
Trump talked about marching to the Capitol building and “showing strength” at the rally. His employee, Giuliani, was making comments about hand to hand combat at the rally. Before the rally, he commented that it was going to be a wild day. During the riot, he praised the rioters by referring to them fondly as special people. I don’t think even this rundown does complete justice as to what Trump did.
In the context of a criminal trial, Trump could claim ignorance of what his actions meant. I think that would be a hard sell considering he’s a professional politician and the President of the United States. In the context of an impeachment trial, I don’t think claims of ignorance could hold. Even allowing it, that level of cluelessness and recklessness still qualifies as high crimes and misdemeanors.
Trump talked about marching to the Capitol building and “showing strength” at the rally. His employee, Giuliani, was making comments about hand to hand combat at the rally. Before the rally, he commented that it was going to be a wild day. During the riot, he praised the rioters by referring to them fondly as special people. I don’t think even this rundown does complete justice as to what Trump did.
In the context of a criminal trial, Trump could claim ignorance of what his actions meant. I think that would be a hard sell considering he’s a professional politician and the President of the United States. In the context of an impeachment trial, I don’t think claims of ignorance could hold. Even allowing it, that level of cluelessness and recklessness still qualifies as high crimes and misdemeanors.
> Can you quote specific rhetoric which was violent?
Does he have to use rhetoric specifically calling for violence in order to justify the banning? At the rally beforehand he said "we can't let this happen", are you surprised at the outcome?
What the leader of the country says and how they say it matters. He doesn't need to specifically instruct them to overthrow the government... he's been fueling the fire for a long time now suggesting the election was rigged. While it's an obvious lie, because of who he is some people are going to believe him lie or not... remember the people who ingested fish tank cleaner?
Does he have to use rhetoric specifically calling for violence in order to justify the banning? At the rally beforehand he said "we can't let this happen", are you surprised at the outcome?
What the leader of the country says and how they say it matters. He doesn't need to specifically instruct them to overthrow the government... he's been fueling the fire for a long time now suggesting the election was rigged. While it's an obvious lie, because of who he is some people are going to believe him lie or not... remember the people who ingested fish tank cleaner?
I don't see how what he said or didn't say matters to the question at hand when #f80 male is no good!
Well quite. You'd think for all the screeching of "incitement" the news coverage would be able to find one 5 second clip or tweet or something where he'd actually done it. It beggars belief how low journalistic standards have fallen.
protip: they never actually believed anything they were saying, they just want to use the opportunity to criminalize and ban their political opposition
It is complicated. Trump was dogwhistling for years before anything was done.
We can all agree that "go and kill X" should be stopped, but it's not clear where the line goes. "X is a bad person" could be incitement too, depending on context.
We can all agree that "go and kill X" should be stopped, but it's not clear where the line goes. "X is a bad person" could be incitement too, depending on context.
I think this is the central problem. Companies are overcautious in their assessments because of potential litigation and they also tend to use algorithms for them to save costs, which almost always leads to algorithmic discrimination.
In contrast to this, judges are generally able and trained to make such assessments by evaluating the circumstances and the intentions behind speech, and when they err there is a clearly regulated appeals process.
So I don't think it's a good idea for companies to be allowed to ban whole apps like Parler or persons like Trump, even though I principally endorse these measures. The wrong mechanisms are behind it. Instead there should be more oversight of corporations and how they make decisions that may massively affect someone's online life (which has become an almost essential part of life for most people). Mere accusations of crimes should not lead to a full-fledged ban.
I'm fine with limiting the number of people one can reach, e.g. Twitter disallowing retweets or Facebook sending posts only to closest friends. However, even these measures should be transparent, based on openly published and clear guidelines, and there must be an appeals process with several instances and humans in the loop.
Right now, the problem is that individuals and companies have no right of public online representation, and at the same time huge corporations have all the rights to cancel anyone's account without transparency or appeal. That is inherently unjust and will get worse the more important online features become for the rest of your life, e.g. what do employers think when you apply without Facebook account, and so on.
In contrast to this, judges are generally able and trained to make such assessments by evaluating the circumstances and the intentions behind speech, and when they err there is a clearly regulated appeals process.
So I don't think it's a good idea for companies to be allowed to ban whole apps like Parler or persons like Trump, even though I principally endorse these measures. The wrong mechanisms are behind it. Instead there should be more oversight of corporations and how they make decisions that may massively affect someone's online life (which has become an almost essential part of life for most people). Mere accusations of crimes should not lead to a full-fledged ban.
I'm fine with limiting the number of people one can reach, e.g. Twitter disallowing retweets or Facebook sending posts only to closest friends. However, even these measures should be transparent, based on openly published and clear guidelines, and there must be an appeals process with several instances and humans in the loop.
Right now, the problem is that individuals and companies have no right of public online representation, and at the same time huge corporations have all the rights to cancel anyone's account without transparency or appeal. That is inherently unjust and will get worse the more important online features become for the rest of your life, e.g. what do employers think when you apply without Facebook account, and so on.
But we also have no right of public presentation on radio nor TV, it's fully up to the station owner. And it wasn't really a problem...or?
Yes, but as I tried to make plausible it's fundamentally different with online media. The analogy is flawed. If the majority of people had been present on radio and TV, had their air time and it would be completely normal to watch their shows, then excluding minorities would have been problematic.
> Why did Twitter allow “Hang Mike Pence” to trend last night? Where are the suspensions and permanent bans?
Thus is a brilliantly good question!
My big takeaway from reading Twitter’s blog behind Trump’s suspension is that the words of a tweet themselves are not particularly deterministic of policy violation or enforcement. What seems to be the clincher is the _interpretation_ and their _real world effect_. For example, Trump’s recent tweets taken collectively _and_ the effect of his supporters’ March on the capitol were starkly different than the “hang mike pence” or the women’s March (for example’s sake) that happened a few years ago on the capitol.
In both the latter cases, there is no credible threat of real world violence. Similarly, “Hang Mike Pence” tweets have no predictable certainty to cause any harm to Mike Pence or anyone in the political community the same way Trump’s tweets about skipping Biden’s inauguration (and therefore being a good target to attack by his supporters etc etc), OTHOH, are.
Twitter’s blog obviously has more context and better explanation.
What I’m trying to say is that, it seems like _interpretation_ of tweets & _determination of real world effects_ is what leads to policy enforcement. Of course, that is susceptible to human judgment and error. But I don’t think it rooted in coordinated outright bias against conservative voices.
Thus is a brilliantly good question!
My big takeaway from reading Twitter’s blog behind Trump’s suspension is that the words of a tweet themselves are not particularly deterministic of policy violation or enforcement. What seems to be the clincher is the _interpretation_ and their _real world effect_. For example, Trump’s recent tweets taken collectively _and_ the effect of his supporters’ March on the capitol were starkly different than the “hang mike pence” or the women’s March (for example’s sake) that happened a few years ago on the capitol.
In both the latter cases, there is no credible threat of real world violence. Similarly, “Hang Mike Pence” tweets have no predictable certainty to cause any harm to Mike Pence or anyone in the political community the same way Trump’s tweets about skipping Biden’s inauguration (and therefore being a good target to attack by his supporters etc etc), OTHOH, are.
Twitter’s blog obviously has more context and better explanation.
What I’m trying to say is that, it seems like _interpretation_ of tweets & _determination of real world effects_ is what leads to policy enforcement. Of course, that is susceptible to human judgment and error. But I don’t think it rooted in coordinated outright bias against conservative voices.
I'm not clear how twitter shows a double standard? It's the trump folks who were chanting to hang mike pence, and their leader, trump, has been banned. I guess the double standard that the right wingers don't get banned soon enough? Or that wealthy stars don't get banned soon enough? Trump should have been banned before becoming president even
If you take a look at https://www.allsides.com/blog/capitol-hill-breach-riot-cover..., you'll see a deep analysis of a double standard in how media covered this riot versus other such events (including past riots at the capitol!).
A significant number of riots took place in 2020, and this is true even in DC. For example just take a look at the photos and videos in https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/fires-light-..., which shows damage on a far greater scale than this recent capitol riot. Lots of people and organizations on Twitter or Facebook had organized these events, which included looting, property damage, vandalism, assaults, arson, and more. Many politicians, such as AOC, condoned and even encouraged these events (see https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/13480304421596897...). This extends to news media as well, who often mislabeled violent riots as "peaceful protests" and excused them or covered them in a sympathetic way (see https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/07/media-downplays-blm-antic... or https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/rage-at-capitol-assault-makes-...). All these actors were inciting violence, certainly to the standard Twitter uses to judge them (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...).
These other past events included much more significant economic damage in the billions and many more deaths than the capitol riot. So why are all those people and organizations allowed to continue using their social media accounts? Why weren't those same participants, organizes, enablers, and sympathizers criticized just as heavily by politicians, news media, social media, and others? This is a clear double standard, where criminality and violence is permitted if those who are in control of these platforms (news outlets, tech companies) agree with your cause and share your ideology.
A significant number of riots took place in 2020, and this is true even in DC. For example just take a look at the photos and videos in https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/fires-light-..., which shows damage on a far greater scale than this recent capitol riot. Lots of people and organizations on Twitter or Facebook had organized these events, which included looting, property damage, vandalism, assaults, arson, and more. Many politicians, such as AOC, condoned and even encouraged these events (see https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/13480304421596897...). This extends to news media as well, who often mislabeled violent riots as "peaceful protests" and excused them or covered them in a sympathetic way (see https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/07/media-downplays-blm-antic... or https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/rage-at-capitol-assault-makes-...). All these actors were inciting violence, certainly to the standard Twitter uses to judge them (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...).
These other past events included much more significant economic damage in the billions and many more deaths than the capitol riot. So why are all those people and organizations allowed to continue using their social media accounts? Why weren't those same participants, organizes, enablers, and sympathizers criticized just as heavily by politicians, news media, social media, and others? This is a clear double standard, where criminality and violence is permitted if those who are in control of these platforms (news outlets, tech companies) agree with your cause and share your ideology.
Excellent post. Why is this riot causing bans whereas in May it was encouraged? I want to see an informed rebuttal here, does anyone have it?
I really think it is because people were aligned to the political causes of those riots and were willing to use violence to achieve their political goals (which happens to be the dictionary definition of 'terrorism'). Even those who were not committing violence themselves, like politicians, were willing to excuse others engaged in violence. Here are four quotes from politicians inciting rioting in a much more explicit way than Trump - I say more explicit particularly because by the time they said these things, there was already widespread rioting: https://twitter.com/BernardKerik/status/1347652272852004877 (Ayanna Pressley, Kamala Harris, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi)
The violence was also not just confined to May. In Seattle, there's a group called EDM (Every Day March) that conducts illegal riots blocking highways every single day (literally on over 200 days so far since George Floyd). They organize themselves on social media, particularly on Instagram where they have two accounts and document/evangelize their own crimes (https://www.instagram.com/morningmarchseattle and https://www.instagram.com/morningmarchseattle). Note that Facebook has not banned them, GoFundMe allows them to fundraise on their platform, and local politicians support their actions and false claims (example https://twitter.com/cmkshama/status/1288511663948230657).
Another example is Rose City Antifa in Portland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_City_Antifa), which is the oldest and most active antifa group in the US, and has been engaged in riots throughout 2020. They have done things like beat a journalist who was documenting their crimes (https://thepostmillennial.com/judge-dismisses-anti-slapp-mot...), set fires at a courthouse (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/us/portland-protests-dama...), vandalized federal buildings (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8670207/Portland-pr...), and repeatedly assaulted police officers. This disgusting terrorist group still has a presence on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/sometimesantisocialalwaysantifascis...) and Twitter (https://twitter.com/RoseCityAntifa) even though they are explicitly and consistently violent.
As an aside, isn't it interesting that people are still gaslighting everyone by claiming that antifa is "just an idea"? When's the last time an "idea" showed up to a court and filed a fraudulent anti-SLAPP motion after viciously beating a journalist?
The violence was also not just confined to May. In Seattle, there's a group called EDM (Every Day March) that conducts illegal riots blocking highways every single day (literally on over 200 days so far since George Floyd). They organize themselves on social media, particularly on Instagram where they have two accounts and document/evangelize their own crimes (https://www.instagram.com/morningmarchseattle and https://www.instagram.com/morningmarchseattle). Note that Facebook has not banned them, GoFundMe allows them to fundraise on their platform, and local politicians support their actions and false claims (example https://twitter.com/cmkshama/status/1288511663948230657).
Another example is Rose City Antifa in Portland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_City_Antifa), which is the oldest and most active antifa group in the US, and has been engaged in riots throughout 2020. They have done things like beat a journalist who was documenting their crimes (https://thepostmillennial.com/judge-dismisses-anti-slapp-mot...), set fires at a courthouse (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/us/portland-protests-dama...), vandalized federal buildings (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8670207/Portland-pr...), and repeatedly assaulted police officers. This disgusting terrorist group still has a presence on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/sometimesantisocialalwaysantifascis...) and Twitter (https://twitter.com/RoseCityAntifa) even though they are explicitly and consistently violent.
As an aside, isn't it interesting that people are still gaslighting everyone by claiming that antifa is "just an idea"? When's the last time an "idea" showed up to a court and filed a fraudulent anti-SLAPP motion after viciously beating a journalist?
Hate speech is not protected speech, it's always been that way, even in the US.
This is incorrect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment
The absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment currently in vogue has only been so since 1969. When Biden restructures the Supreme Court, we'll see how long that lasts.
Same with the Second Amendment.
Same with the Second Amendment.
Not according to the supreme court.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
I've read comments saying, "if you don't like Apple's policies, build a new smartphone." Are these people aware that that the same type of argument lead to the creation of parler: "if you don't like twitter censorship, build a new platform". It will be built. What then?
At this point we are heading towards a complete mitosis of our information channels based on political ideology.
At this point we are heading towards a complete mitosis of our information channels based on political ideology.
>It will be built.
I don't think we're going to get a "red" phone. Seems more likely that we'll just see people get Parler on Android through channels other than the Play Store.
>What then?
There's a lot of additional attack vectors. We've already seen Amazon move to boot Parler off its web infrastructure. If that fails to kill the platform, we'll likely see attacks on anything related to its financing, or things like CloudFlare protection. If that fails I could see progressives abandoning net neutrality to lean on ISPs to block traffic.
In reality I don't think we'll get all the way there, but we'll get close enough that a stable "red social media" ecosystem will emerge that's out of reach of cancellation. In the long run this may work out worse for everyone.
I don't think we're going to get a "red" phone. Seems more likely that we'll just see people get Parler on Android through channels other than the Play Store.
>What then?
There's a lot of additional attack vectors. We've already seen Amazon move to boot Parler off its web infrastructure. If that fails to kill the platform, we'll likely see attacks on anything related to its financing, or things like CloudFlare protection. If that fails I could see progressives abandoning net neutrality to lean on ISPs to block traffic.
In reality I don't think we'll get all the way there, but we'll get close enough that a stable "red social media" ecosystem will emerge that's out of reach of cancellation. In the long run this may work out worse for everyone.
I think you are right but people aren't thinking long term.
This will force people into camps and the camps will not see each other creating a massively re-enforcing echo chamber that will further inflame things.
That said, while I do vigorously support free political speech -even disagreeable political speech (if you don't then it's "speech I agree with"), unfortunately, you have people who don't know where to draw the line and cross into vile threats and other heinous crime.
It's a case of why we can't have nice things. A few people ruin it for the many.
But yeah, this is going to be disastrous for us. However, the social media companies and the regular media made this bed and they are happy swines right now.
I hope other countries wise up to especially social media platforms (be they from the US, China, Russia, etc) and build their own to avoid having large countries influence how smaller countries should conduct themselves.
That is basically, a few corporations are setting the tone of discussion for all people except China, North Korea and Iran (who, in retrospect, "wisely" banned them). That's not a good thing.
They are the culture barons and they are not shy about using their power to steer things.
This will force people into camps and the camps will not see each other creating a massively re-enforcing echo chamber that will further inflame things.
That said, while I do vigorously support free political speech -even disagreeable political speech (if you don't then it's "speech I agree with"), unfortunately, you have people who don't know where to draw the line and cross into vile threats and other heinous crime.
It's a case of why we can't have nice things. A few people ruin it for the many.
But yeah, this is going to be disastrous for us. However, the social media companies and the regular media made this bed and they are happy swines right now.
I hope other countries wise up to especially social media platforms (be they from the US, China, Russia, etc) and build their own to avoid having large countries influence how smaller countries should conduct themselves.
That is basically, a few corporations are setting the tone of discussion for all people except China, North Korea and Iran (who, in retrospect, "wisely" banned them). That's not a good thing.
They are the culture barons and they are not shy about using their power to steer things.
>This will force people into camps and the camps will not see each other creating a massively re-enforcing echo chamber that will further inflame things.
Honestly it's already happened in my view, even when conservatives were not being purged wholesale from these platforms by administrators they were already being purged from user-moderated communities on these platforms. This is largely about people who already don't engage with conservatives wanting to leverage whatever power they can in order to disrupt the ability to communicate and associate with one another online. The pretext is of course stopping violence, but even a lot of people on the left see the rank hypocrisy of this hand-wringing given the kind of rhetoric that the left has been producing over the past several years.
Honestly it's already happened in my view, even when conservatives were not being purged wholesale from these platforms by administrators they were already being purged from user-moderated communities on these platforms. This is largely about people who already don't engage with conservatives wanting to leverage whatever power they can in order to disrupt the ability to communicate and associate with one another online. The pretext is of course stopping violence, but even a lot of people on the left see the rank hypocrisy of this hand-wringing given the kind of rhetoric that the left has been producing over the past several years.
This has nothing to do with conservatism. I am banned from /r/conservative for posting conservative beliefs. Don't be fooled by the labels being used. Being anti-left is not the same as being conservative. Fascism, just to give one example, is anti-left but it's not conservative in any traditional American sense of the word.
Maybe you could more accurately say this is about the "right wing"? Actual dyed-in-the-wool conservatives seem to want nothing to do with Trump or Qanon or any of this stuff, which seems to have little to nothing to do with conservative values.
I see a lot of conservatives turning towards Biden and Harris, who to me appear to be actually very conservative. Harris is a literal cop, and Biden's platform is basically "let's get back to normal". I'm not a fan, but I understand why conservatives would like them.
Maybe you could more accurately say this is about the "right wing"? Actual dyed-in-the-wool conservatives seem to want nothing to do with Trump or Qanon or any of this stuff, which seems to have little to nothing to do with conservative values.
I see a lot of conservatives turning towards Biden and Harris, who to me appear to be actually very conservative. Harris is a literal cop, and Biden's platform is basically "let's get back to normal". I'm not a fan, but I understand why conservatives would like them.
[deleted]
Do you also support terrorists planning and announcing attacks openly? Because that’s what was contained in Amazon’s letter to Parler - 98 instances of real threats against minorities, press, legislators, etc.
Discourse has always had limits of decency, and when that cannot be ensured - the very tool or network becomes a national security concern. Conservatives aren’t the issue - it’s the batshit crazy terrorists that aren’t contained.
Discourse has always had limits of decency, and when that cannot be ensured - the very tool or network becomes a national security concern. Conservatives aren’t the issue - it’s the batshit crazy terrorists that aren’t contained.
I do not support violent threats issued by leftists or rightists. However, I do see leftist terroristic threats given more berth than rightist threats. ("Let's burn that mutherf*er down")
That said other speech that may contain lies and deceit, etc, should be protected free speech. Because, as we know, facts change. Just like Vitamin D & Covid. Oh, now it's okay. Before it was a lie.
That said other speech that may contain lies and deceit, etc, should be protected free speech. Because, as we know, facts change. Just like Vitamin D & Covid. Oh, now it's okay. Before it was a lie.
My favourite thing was getting sitebanned from Reddit for advocating the use of face masks, especially for high risk populations (ie the elderly or those with pre-existing conditions).
Apparently I was spreading misinformation because WHO said masks don’t help the general public.
Apparently I was spreading misinformation because WHO said masks don’t help the general public.
> My favourite thing was getting sitebanned from Reddit for advocating the use of face masks
Do you have any evidence of this? There were lots of people advocating masks on r/Coronavirus since January. I've never heard of a site-ban for conduct that doesn't violate Reddit's TOS.
Do you have any evidence of this? There were lots of people advocating masks on r/Coronavirus since January. I've never heard of a site-ban for conduct that doesn't violate Reddit's TOS.
"Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia"
That is odd because I have seen people advocating the use of face masks on various reddits since the begining of covid.
The question:
“Why is it that Leftist terroristic threats are given a greater level of leeway versus Rightist threats?”
has a companion question which is equally pertinent:
“Why is it that Rightist violence is met with restrained law enforcement responses versus the heavy handed responses during occasions of Leftist violence?”
“Why is it that Leftist terroristic threats are given a greater level of leeway versus Rightist threats?”
has a companion question which is equally pertinent:
“Why is it that Rightist violence is met with restrained law enforcement responses versus the heavy handed responses during occasions of Leftist violence?”
Where was the heavy handed law enforcement response during BLM protests the last 6 months? I don’t recall any protestors being shot.
[deleted]
Watching liberals morph into 2001-era Republicans is pretty funny. We should call the coming era the Orange Scare.
This has been and is already a thing: neo-liberal(ism)
And particularly, the New Democrats since the concept of neoliberalism crosses the aisle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats
The long run is difficult to forecast. My hope is that somebody, maybe the next Republican administration whenever it happens, will make walled gardens illegal.
I never liked them and it's the main reason for I don't buy anything Apple. Android has sideloading, let's hope Google won't take it away from us.
If walled gardens go away there will be at least one good consequence in what happened on January 6. Everything else looks bad for both sides. A blog post was posted to HN about one month ago, somebody from Sri Lanka writing about what happened there after the losing party contested the result of an election. The point was that Americans were blind to the consequences of destroying the legitimacy of the electoral process. It is easy to see now that he was right and there is a lot of space open for further escalations. I don't live in the USA but what happens in the USA comes to all the Western World, more sooner than later.
Edit. The post is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25171844 and I see now that it was flagged after I read it. Maybe we can see that it was prescient enough not to be flagged again now.
I never liked them and it's the main reason for I don't buy anything Apple. Android has sideloading, let's hope Google won't take it away from us.
If walled gardens go away there will be at least one good consequence in what happened on January 6. Everything else looks bad for both sides. A blog post was posted to HN about one month ago, somebody from Sri Lanka writing about what happened there after the losing party contested the result of an election. The point was that Americans were blind to the consequences of destroying the legitimacy of the electoral process. It is easy to see now that he was right and there is a lot of space open for further escalations. I don't live in the USA but what happens in the USA comes to all the Western World, more sooner than later.
Edit. The post is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25171844 and I see now that it was flagged after I read it. Maybe we can see that it was prescient enough not to be flagged again now.
> If that fails I could see progressives abandoning net neutrality to lean on ISPs to block traffic.
Funny considering of course that republicans abandoned net neutrality years ago.. Now maybe they will support it?
Funny considering of course that republicans abandoned net neutrality years ago.. Now maybe they will support it?
Republicans want to deregulate ISPs but regulate .com because the most influential .com companies lean left. It's as simple as that. They were happy getting rid of the "fairness doctrine" for broadcast TV but want it back for .com platforms.
Trump is just the most ugly manifestation of this attack on non-right wing media and platforms: he threatened to veto an unrelated military spending bill unless Congress repealed Section 230 in hopes of heaping a DMCA-like level of liability onto Twitter et al. The actual result would be the neutering of the Internet for everyone: no comment sections if discussion was not the major feature, heavy moderation of anything that might offend anyone.
Trump is just the most ugly manifestation of this attack on non-right wing media and platforms: he threatened to veto an unrelated military spending bill unless Congress repealed Section 230 in hopes of heaping a DMCA-like level of liability onto Twitter et al. The actual result would be the neutering of the Internet for everyone: no comment sections if discussion was not the major feature, heavy moderation of anything that might offend anyone.
Amazon has announced they are pulling Parler off their web infrastructure. They are free to rent their own hosting from another provider, or buy their own computers and peer to the internet.
Until you people go after their peer, right? Then it’s “level3 is a private company”.
> Until you people go after their peer, right? Then it’s “level3 is a private company”.
Hey, if only the FCC rule that ISPs should be obligated to permit all legal content and applications without discrimination was still in place.
Who are the idiots that got rid of that?
Hey, if only the FCC rule that ISPs should be obligated to permit all legal content and applications without discrimination was still in place.
Who are the idiots that got rid of that?
bra-ket(1)
Yep. At the the of the day, the internet is a network and a network requires two parties.
Turns out the net's administrators interpret some signal as damage and also route around it.
Turns out the net's administrators interpret some signal as damage and also route around it.
Yep. Minutes behind. Curious to see how long this knocks Parler offline.
The pirate bay manages to stay online
Gab announced a phone today.
That's interesting news. Do you have a link?
Yes! Looks droidlike.
[0]: https://news.gab.com/2021/01/09/gabs-statement-on-apple-and-...
[0]: https://news.gab.com/2021/01/09/gabs-statement-on-apple-and-...
Sure looks a lot like an ordinary android phone, using Google's OS
>we'll get close enough that a stable "red social media" ecosystem will emerge that's out of reach of cancellation. In the long run this may work out worse for everyone.
I would expect the same, but substitute "worse" for "better". Trumpism lives on conflict and trolling. There's nobody to troll on Parler. It's affective politics as much as ideological: they may believe awful things, but they're mostly out to have a good time. Parler is like a video game with all the cheat codes on; it will entertain them at first, but they'll get bored quickly.
What they'll do next I'm not sure, but the whole political success of Trumpism was based on turnout, which was based on enthusiasm. Facebook and Twitter are enthusiasm-generating machines, and cutting Trump supporters off is not much different than cutting off a bar patron who's clearly had seven too many. They might make new social networks, but they won't be as good, and that's enough.
I would expect the same, but substitute "worse" for "better". Trumpism lives on conflict and trolling. There's nobody to troll on Parler. It's affective politics as much as ideological: they may believe awful things, but they're mostly out to have a good time. Parler is like a video game with all the cheat codes on; it will entertain them at first, but they'll get bored quickly.
What they'll do next I'm not sure, but the whole political success of Trumpism was based on turnout, which was based on enthusiasm. Facebook and Twitter are enthusiasm-generating machines, and cutting Trump supporters off is not much different than cutting off a bar patron who's clearly had seven too many. They might make new social networks, but they won't be as good, and that's enough.
> Parler is like a video game with all the cheat codes on; it will entertain them at first, but they'll get bored quickly.
When I was much younger - like, 8-9-10yo, PC games were hard for me: younger age, smaller-mind. I’d use my limited time on my 28.8 dialup to get cheat codes and burn hours of my life having fun in the single-player skirmish/instant-action-mode (as opposed to campaign/story mode - this was before always-on internet and built-in matchmaking, ofc) - and I never got bored of it. I didn’t get tired of winning. Not that “winning” was the objective, but just blowing stuff up in Streets-of-SimCity or spamming the easter-egg nuke-troopers in Age of Empires was enough to entertain me.
I didn’t stop cheating at single-player PC games until after I was old enough to understand how to actually play the game and started to appreciate the challenge and enjoy the satisfaction of overcoming that challenge.
As a comparison - I see similarities with the types of people on Parler: there’s no appreciation of /the system/ - just a desire to be-on-top, stay-on-top, and have fun blowing shit up. They either don’t enjoy “the game” or they’re unable to play it, so they’ve invented their own game. Hence, the “like playing chess with a pigeon” idiom: shitting on the chessboard is more fun for them than playing by the rules.
When I was much younger - like, 8-9-10yo, PC games were hard for me: younger age, smaller-mind. I’d use my limited time on my 28.8 dialup to get cheat codes and burn hours of my life having fun in the single-player skirmish/instant-action-mode (as opposed to campaign/story mode - this was before always-on internet and built-in matchmaking, ofc) - and I never got bored of it. I didn’t get tired of winning. Not that “winning” was the objective, but just blowing stuff up in Streets-of-SimCity or spamming the easter-egg nuke-troopers in Age of Empires was enough to entertain me.
I didn’t stop cheating at single-player PC games until after I was old enough to understand how to actually play the game and started to appreciate the challenge and enjoy the satisfaction of overcoming that challenge.
As a comparison - I see similarities with the types of people on Parler: there’s no appreciation of /the system/ - just a desire to be-on-top, stay-on-top, and have fun blowing shit up. They either don’t enjoy “the game” or they’re unable to play it, so they’ve invented their own game. Hence, the “like playing chess with a pigeon” idiom: shitting on the chessboard is more fun for them than playing by the rules.
The game analogy is interesting because this is clearly a bunch of sore losers.
This is what happens when you live in your own bubble and don't even bother to talk to Trump supporters and look past the memes and trolling. The memes and trolling were a necessary part of "waking the sheeple" discourse from what I understand Trumpism is. There is a World beyond all that which only those who have looked past the memes and trolling can actually understand. But given that you live in your own safe bubble you'll never know it. That's the whole point of this situation. We are already living in a balkanized internet where everyone has found their ideological safe zones and no one is willing to learn and engage with the other. It is exact opposite to what the internet was in the 90s and 2000s where you would actively seek out people with different ideologies and characters - especially the odd and crazy ones. It is sad to see this happen because I have seen how internet evolved since the 90s. It was a fun place. It is no more. Now we have mapped our real life to virtual life to such an extent that we have melted the barrier that existed in the beginning. Internet was a place where you could assume any identity and would get respect from everyone and be treated the same. A 13 year old kid could interact with a 50 year old adult on programming topics and both wouldn't know their real identities except for the discussion at hand. That internet doesn't exist anymore.
> don't even bother to talk to Trump supporters and look past the memes and trolling
We did, but when we challenged their fundamental assumptions about the world or proposed alternatives in earnest reasoned debate and discourse they called us “cucks” and what can you do at that point?
Yes, there are people who have been left-behind and find themselves economically disadvantaged by the changing world (e.g. The rust-belt) - but that’s not the basis of “Trumpism” - Reactionary right-wing politics draws on that group but it isn’t the cause nor basis for it. Remember that Trump isn’t really that popular amongst actually poor people - he’s popular with people who grew up in an environment that promoted what we now call /toxic individualism/. And America has a long tradition of it.
We did, but when we challenged their fundamental assumptions about the world or proposed alternatives in earnest reasoned debate and discourse they called us “cucks” and what can you do at that point?
Yes, there are people who have been left-behind and find themselves economically disadvantaged by the changing world (e.g. The rust-belt) - but that’s not the basis of “Trumpism” - Reactionary right-wing politics draws on that group but it isn’t the cause nor basis for it. Remember that Trump isn’t really that popular amongst actually poor people - he’s popular with people who grew up in an environment that promoted what we now call /toxic individualism/. And America has a long tradition of it.
If that is the extent of effort you went to understand the other side then you never understood it. Can you give a reasoned, principled argument against open borders, transsexualism, liberalism itself? if you cant, you dont understand. You went to Trump supporters like to an ATM expecting a full service withdrawal. Life doesn't work that way, people dont either
>Can you give a reasoned, principled argument against open borders, transsexualism, liberalism itself?
I've heard plenty of reasoned arguments against those things. Here's the problem: they weren't given by Trump supporters. They came from moderates, or in some cases, from Marxists.
Trumpism isn't just opposition to what Fox News says the Democratic Party supports. It's the belief structure that convinces people that "open borders" is even on the table in modern politics at all (it isn't). If you think that "open borders" is more likely in the next two decades than the country being destroyed by an asteroid impact, you're already in the disinformation hole.
I've heard plenty of reasoned arguments against those things. Here's the problem: they weren't given by Trump supporters. They came from moderates, or in some cases, from Marxists.
Trumpism isn't just opposition to what Fox News says the Democratic Party supports. It's the belief structure that convinces people that "open borders" is even on the table in modern politics at all (it isn't). If you think that "open borders" is more likely in the next two decades than the country being destroyed by an asteroid impact, you're already in the disinformation hole.
> we challenged their fundamental assumptions about the world or proposed alternatives they called us “cucks” and what can you do at that point
That's not true at all for most Trump supporters. If you have trouble finding answers to your questions I can give them to you. I won't call you a cuck and will engage in a proper debate. Even though I don't subscribe to all of Trump's policies I'm a right winger and a conservative. Another point to note: I don't subscribe to all of Trump's policies because the right wing in America is different from right wing in my country in many respects. But there is sufficient overlap to be able to say I can agree to many of the conservative points in US politics as well. So if you have questions regarding my ideology fire away and I'll try my best to answer.
That's not true at all for most Trump supporters. If you have trouble finding answers to your questions I can give them to you. I won't call you a cuck and will engage in a proper debate. Even though I don't subscribe to all of Trump's policies I'm a right winger and a conservative. Another point to note: I don't subscribe to all of Trump's policies because the right wing in America is different from right wing in my country in many respects. But there is sufficient overlap to be able to say I can agree to many of the conservative points in US politics as well. So if you have questions regarding my ideology fire away and I'll try my best to answer.
In no way does this describe conservative discourse. This just demonstrates how far apart the bubbles are growing.
I've given them far more than the benefit of the doubt. If you think your movement can survive without trolling, you're free to demonstrate that over the coming months.
>but we'll get close enough that a stable "red social media" ecosystem will emerge that's out of reach of cancellation
No it won't, because that platform already exists: Twitter. I follow lots of conservatives on Twitter who have no need to ditch the platform, because they actually are decent humans who don't promote racism, unhinged conspiracy theories, violence and sedition. All of those things are now confirmed as losing strategies for the party; businesses doubling down on a losing strategy will fail. This idea, that a certain person's particular brand of bad faith trolling represents all of republicanism, is senseless and divisive and it needs to stop. Retreating into a bubble with this attitude is going to be even more destructive for the republican party and make it even more vulnerable to getting hoodwinked by these bullshit salesmen. (Disclaimer: I don't personally belong to any political parties)
No it won't, because that platform already exists: Twitter. I follow lots of conservatives on Twitter who have no need to ditch the platform, because they actually are decent humans who don't promote racism, unhinged conspiracy theories, violence and sedition. All of those things are now confirmed as losing strategies for the party; businesses doubling down on a losing strategy will fail. This idea, that a certain person's particular brand of bad faith trolling represents all of republicanism, is senseless and divisive and it needs to stop. Retreating into a bubble with this attitude is going to be even more destructive for the republican party and make it even more vulnerable to getting hoodwinked by these bullshit salesmen. (Disclaimer: I don't personally belong to any political parties)
> if you don't like twitter censorship, build a new platform". It will be built. What then?
Even more polarization in society; both groups talking only to themselves, zero dialogue between the groups and no chance to hear an opposing opinion (you had that one with twitter). i hope this won't be the prelude to a more serious rift occuring in the real world.
Even more polarization in society; both groups talking only to themselves, zero dialogue between the groups and no chance to hear an opposing opinion (you had that one with twitter). i hope this won't be the prelude to a more serious rift occuring in the real world.
Twitter isn't censoring the vast majority of people. One group will be the vast majority of people who don't get kicked off Twitter. The other group will be a relatively tiny collection of extremists.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1347898774891491332 Glenn Greenwald says they are leaving in droves (or are being kicked out, not sure on that).
Seems like they are combing profile key words and punting users the last 24 hours. Harmless phrases, acronyms from words Kennedy said. Nothing hateful or inciting but does label them as identifying with a certain spirit or community.
I don't understand something: wouldn't that be extremely bad for twitter? i mean they need subscribers for pushing their advertising, or so i was told.
Not if they are a cost center for the propaganda machine. In Soviet Union no one cared how much Pravda earned from the subscriptions, since it was not their purpose.
I think they are fighting for survival, they might be taking this court action that was pushed by some ten republican states very seriously - this case has a strong legal basis. I suspect that its all business.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-16/google-su...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-16/google-su...
There were three people with Trump flags in my neighborhood on Monday. Those people all took their flags down.
Another explanation is that centrists are simply unfollowing right wing sites. I generally have tried to keep informed across the political spectrum, but I’ve definitely been less inclined to look at right leaning stuff since the Capitol Riot.
Interesting. Is anyone with a shred of credibility confirming that?
It’s because they banned a boatload of accounts that were dedicated to Qanon. A few high profile ones and a ton of others.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna12...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna12...
Actually Glenn Greenwald is the most credible journalist in my opinion. Who speaks to power no matter what.
I have a word with right wing friends. For years and years you supported removal Palestinian activists from Twitter or any other platform. I think you understand what it feels.
I have a word with right wing friends. For years and years you supported removal Palestinian activists from Twitter or any other platform. I think you understand what it feels.
Actually MEMRI has been quoting some of these Palestinian activists, and has been censored by youtube in return: https://www.memri.org/reports/youtube-censors-memri-removes-...
[deleted]
For those who are keep downvoting me.
It just shows you are fucking imbecile and/or ignorant. Keep censoring people, I am eager to see how that is going to work for you.
It just shows you are fucking imbecile and/or ignorant. Keep censoring people, I am eager to see how that is going to work for you.
We've banned this account for obvious reasons, and if you keep creating accounts to abuse HN we will ban your main account as well. No more of this please.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
Twitter isn't going after extremists at all. Terrorists continue to post on Twitter right now. Totalitarian regimes carrying out genocide continue to tweet happily away on Twitter.
This is about going after anyone they think they should ban in order to keep the Democrats happy.
This is not about Trump for the technology companies. It's about bending the knee enough towards the Democrats to ensure that they retain as much of their freedom as possible. They are sacrificing others' freedoms in order to hopefully secure they own - although I think this is a Faustian bargain.
This is about going after anyone they think they should ban in order to keep the Democrats happy.
This is not about Trump for the technology companies. It's about bending the knee enough towards the Democrats to ensure that they retain as much of their freedom as possible. They are sacrificing others' freedoms in order to hopefully secure they own - although I think this is a Faustian bargain.
This. Malaysian ex-PM tweets that Muslims "have 'right' to kill French". Despite the outrage he's still free to tweet. Twitter cares about its image and its advertisers.
Twitter is an American company. Americans don't care about what happens anywhere else. Don't complicate it.
You do know that the Republicans repeatedly dragged tech CEOs in front of their kangaroo courts to air their entirely fabricated grievances, right? Why would technology companies be worried about Democrats after surviving four years of that?
It’s already happened. Since reddit banned r/theDonald, followers migrated over to their own site, thedonald.win. They are now much bigger in traffic, and called for storming of the capital building on Jan 6th.
Because only Trump supporters really visit that site, no one called it out despite the Jan 6th events being organised by millions right in the open.
If reddit didn’t ban TD, this wouldn’t have happened. It wouldn’t have become this radicalised.
Because only Trump supporters really visit that site, no one called it out despite the Jan 6th events being organised by millions right in the open.
If reddit didn’t ban TD, this wouldn’t have happened. It wouldn’t have become this radicalised.
This isn't reddit's fault
If politicians fail to pass gun reform and there’s a miss shooting, you could argue that both (1) the mass shooter and (2) politicians are at fault.
Please explain why you think reddit has no fault in this, when their moderation decisions has directly led to the largest radical right-wing community on the internet.
Reddit could have contained TD. It chose to say “not my problem”?, and let them make an even more radical website.
Please explain why you think reddit has no fault in this, when their moderation decisions has directly led to the largest radical right-wing community on the internet.
Reddit could have contained TD. It chose to say “not my problem”?, and let them make an even more radical website.
This comment is a mess. The fact that Reddit has banned /r/T_D does not make them liable in any way for what that community migrates to. These people espouse an ideology of "personal responsibility", yet it's Reddit's fault that they are choosing to interact with a more extreme website?
That is some pretty twisted logic you have there. This same ass-backwards logic is being used by some now to blame Joe Biden for the Capitol Riot. How dare Biden have won the election, he should have let trump win to prevent Trumps violent mob from sacking the Capitol Building.
No one should give in to the violent, hateful, irrational and seditious mob of Trump supporting Fascist thugs that are increasingly making up more and more of the right wing. They need to be crushed politically and shoved back into their basements. Capitulating to these Fascist thugs even in the slightest has shown that it will only lead to them being emboldened and pushing further and further into Authoritarianism. They don't care about Democracy or Rule of Law, only forcing their views on the rest of society violently!
No one should give in to the violent, hateful, irrational and seditious mob of Trump supporting Fascist thugs that are increasingly making up more and more of the right wing. They need to be crushed politically and shoved back into their basements. Capitulating to these Fascist thugs even in the slightest has shown that it will only lead to them being emboldened and pushing further and further into Authoritarianism. They don't care about Democracy or Rule of Law, only forcing their views on the rest of society violently!
There is a consistent logic to Trump and his followers: they are never to blame. Direct quote: "I don't take any responsibility at all"
Because Reddit is not the police?
Maybe the FBI should have as much knowledge about where the treasonous Trump supporters are meeting up as you do.
Maybe the FBI should have as much knowledge about where the treasonous Trump supporters are meeting up as you do.
> there's a miss shooting
The good news is no one will get hurt! :)
The good news is no one will get hurt! :)
Oh puhleez. Now it's Reddit's fault? The rest of us are supposed to spend our time keeping these wingnuts from radicalizing themselves?
We've banned this account for trolling. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No, you should attack the strongest interpretation of my argument, which is that banning communities only lead to them regrouping and becoming even more polarised and radical.
As it has happened here.
As it has happened here.
shadowgovt(1)
> At this point we are heading towards a complete mitosis of our information channels based on political ideology.
Not just information channels. This is probably going to go well beyond just news: next, businesses. The orthodoxy does not know boundaries.
Not just information channels. This is probably going to go well beyond just news: next, businesses. The orthodoxy does not know boundaries.
I'd compare it to the "red scare," except at no point during that era did "reds" storm Congress and set up a noose outside.
Red-caps, on the other hand...
Perhaps there is a situation where a society says "no further" and is correct to actively shun a political stance. In fact, that's been true in the US for decades... It's real hard to be a KKK chapter without pulling a lot of FBI scrutiny.
Red-caps, on the other hand...
Perhaps there is a situation where a society says "no further" and is correct to actively shun a political stance. In fact, that's been true in the US for decades... It's real hard to be a KKK chapter without pulling a lot of FBI scrutiny.
This is in fact how a “marketplace of ideas” is supposed to work. Marketplace does not mean everyone gets a protected place to play forever and ever. Marketplace means winners and losers. A marketplace of ideas means some ideas win and some lose.
Except that in this marketplace, someone is wandering around, deleting the ideas that they disagree with.
Isn’t that an outcome of the “win and lose” part of the GP’s commentary?
Strong ideologies generate enthusiasm, build momentum, evolve the existing social mores to be compatible with the tenets of the ideology, which ultimately starve the losing ideologies of adherents.
Strong ideologies generate enthusiasm, build momentum, evolve the existing social mores to be compatible with the tenets of the ideology, which ultimately starve the losing ideologies of adherents.
> Isn’t that an outcome of the “win and lose” part of the GP’s commentary?
If it's a marketplace of ideas, the current situation is equivalent to monopolies stamping on startups to prevent them from ever becoming competitors. An actual marketplace of ideas would work without censorship in the first place, like it used to. Note that most minorities right now who obtained civil rights would never have been able to claim them had they be silenced from the get go.
If it's a marketplace of ideas, the current situation is equivalent to monopolies stamping on startups to prevent them from ever becoming competitors. An actual marketplace of ideas would work without censorship in the first place, like it used to. Note that most minorities right now who obtained civil rights would never have been able to claim them had they be silenced from the get go.
> If it's a marketplace of ideas, the current situation is equivalent to monopolies stamping on startups to prevent them from ever becoming competitors. An actual marketplace of ideas would work without censorship in the first place, like it used to. Note that most minorities right now who obtained civil rights would never have been able to claim them had they be silenced from the get go.
The fundamental problem is that truth and lies don't operate on the same playing field. If we can make an assumption that the game is being played fairly within the marketplace of ideas (people are being reasonable and accepting rational arguments), then the marketplace works as intended. If certain actors are subverting that system by design, then you cannot have an unmoderated idea-sphere, unfortunately. Studying some Nazi and Communist propaganda techniques should certainly convince you of that (and how effective they are when applied against a gullible populace).
There is no good solution to this, unfortunately. Once a radical movement takes over the idea-sphere moderation and certain censorship is sadly inevitable & needed. Something akin to Denazification in post WWII Germany (which specifically and forcefully suppressed any Nazi ideology from the mainstream)
The fundamental problem is that truth and lies don't operate on the same playing field. If we can make an assumption that the game is being played fairly within the marketplace of ideas (people are being reasonable and accepting rational arguments), then the marketplace works as intended. If certain actors are subverting that system by design, then you cannot have an unmoderated idea-sphere, unfortunately. Studying some Nazi and Communist propaganda techniques should certainly convince you of that (and how effective they are when applied against a gullible populace).
There is no good solution to this, unfortunately. Once a radical movement takes over the idea-sphere moderation and certain censorship is sadly inevitable & needed. Something akin to Denazification in post WWII Germany (which specifically and forcefully suppressed any Nazi ideology from the mainstream)
“Perhaps there is a situation where a society says "no further" and is correct to actively shun a political stance.”
Just remember that we live in a world where a subset of people genuinely believed Obama is a Stalinist. Once you define whatever is beyond the pale, people will just shove everything they don’t like into that bucket.
Just remember that we live in a world where a subset of people genuinely believed Obama is a Stalinist. Once you define whatever is beyond the pale, people will just shove everything they don’t like into that bucket.
They still believe it. And yes, when these times come, people get forced to get off the fence and prove they aren't part of the problem.
But these times do come. Congress was attacked. Threats need to be identified, and quickly.
But these times do come. Congress was attacked. Threats need to be identified, and quickly.
[deleted]
What about when the Black Panthers brought guns into the California state Capitol?
Should society have said “no further?”
Should society have said “no further?”
Society did. That, in part, motivated gun control laws that followed. Signed by Governor Reagan and supported by the NRA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
They did. That's when California started going big on gun control.
You don’t realize what happened in the years following?
> Information channels based on political ideology.
Is credible threats of violence, especially towards elected officials, a "political ideology" that deserves protection and promotion?
You make it out as if this is an attact on Republicans or conservatists. It's not. It's an attack on extremists who are posting credible threads of extreme harm and violence on others. Is banning ISIS from platforms enough of a "slippery slope" that would prevent the ban?
Is credible threats of violence, especially towards elected officials, a "political ideology" that deserves protection and promotion?
You make it out as if this is an attact on Republicans or conservatists. It's not. It's an attack on extremists who are posting credible threads of extreme harm and violence on others. Is banning ISIS from platforms enough of a "slippery slope" that would prevent the ban?
Exactly, many of the people crying loudly right now are doing it from Twitter, because they have not been banned, because they did not incite any violence.
Political ideology that is unethical deserves no platform, cheating, killing, attacking, are all examples of that. Nobody deserves to get a platform, and nobody gets to trample other peoples’ rights either.
Because, The political Ideology of the United States already does not do that?
Why do you think we have a Military? Why do you think we have a criminal system? Why do you think we have Justice and Courts?
The whole creation of the United States was unethical because every citizen was of the British Crown and were traitors.
Or, are you not aware of your history and that this de platforming is only making the other side message much more stronger.
It really is eye-widening how many people fail to see the consequence of removing a service, and how it hinders intelligence, counter intelligence and general observation.
Why do you think we have a Military? Why do you think we have a criminal system? Why do you think we have Justice and Courts?
The whole creation of the United States was unethical because every citizen was of the British Crown and were traitors.
Or, are you not aware of your history and that this de platforming is only making the other side message much more stronger.
It really is eye-widening how many people fail to see the consequence of removing a service, and how it hinders intelligence, counter intelligence and general observation.
> Or, are you not aware of your history and that this de platforming is only making the other side message much more stronger.
This is the point that supporters of de-platforming fail to recognise. They preach "Build your own platform" yet they still persist to de-platform until the target cannot be de-platformed off the internet.
After all their efforts, Gab is still alive since they are self-hosted and once Parler is taken off of AWS, they will open more Gab accounts.
I can only see that it will either lead to Gab receiving a wave of new users from Parler or these ex-Parler users will start creating encrypted group chats on Telegram or Signal which also cannot be taken down.
This is the point that supporters of de-platforming fail to recognise. They preach "Build your own platform" yet they still persist to de-platform until the target cannot be de-platformed off the internet.
After all their efforts, Gab is still alive since they are self-hosted and once Parler is taken off of AWS, they will open more Gab accounts.
I can only see that it will either lead to Gab receiving a wave of new users from Parler or these ex-Parler users will start creating encrypted group chats on Telegram or Signal which also cannot be taken down.
The point is to make it significantly more difficult to recruit and spread. Doesn’t change the people who are already committed, but probably prevents people from discovering it.
What? What does unethical even mean? That's a weasel word. Pelosi lies, Schumer lies, McConnel lies, Trump lies, Biden lies. They all lie. They all cheat too. Are you going to deplatform 99%+ of politicians and 80+ of regular people too?
Exactly. What scale, or how do you judge what is a lie?
What even is a "lie?" Someone disgruntled that is an USA citizen? That is not an USA Citizen?
It's like everyone forgot Politicans jobs are to play the wind, say the right words, garner support and always stay in the limelight of what society thinks they "represent."
I've been reading old newspaper articles/time magazines from the 1940s-70's and it's amazing how different the world itself, from media really represents and how these companies all join together on a message such as this.
What even is a "lie?" Someone disgruntled that is an USA citizen? That is not an USA Citizen?
It's like everyone forgot Politicans jobs are to play the wind, say the right words, garner support and always stay in the limelight of what society thinks they "represent."
I've been reading old newspaper articles/time magazines from the 1940s-70's and it's amazing how different the world itself, from media really represents and how these companies all join together on a message such as this.
Why not? Deplatform all the politicians -- at least the 95% who actively lie and work against the interests of the American people. While we're at it, kick them out of Washington on their asses. Nothing of value will be lost.
That's not how it works. Instead, politicians are deplatforming what they want. You don't control the process, they do. Even if in the moment they deplatform people that you dislike, never think you have any control over it.
If Donald Trump holds a press conference and nobody comes, does it make a sound?
A better question is - do you think current politicians are so perfect that you can trust them with controlling who can and can not have press conferences? Surely they would never abuse it for any other ends when they're done with Donald Trump!
Who ever said anything about politicians controlling who can have press conferences? I can't even characterize that as a straw man, because it has no basis in anything I said.
Politicians control censors on Twitter (you don't think it's random that all prominent politicians from the right are censored and all prominent politicians from the left are not?) and Facebook. Censors control who gets access to the public discussions. Ergo, politicians control access to public discussions.
Politicians are not directing Twitter to censor anyone. That would violate the first amendment. Why haven't these "censored" politicians won any lawsuits to get un-censored, then? Your argument falls flat on its face.
> That would violate the first amendment.
No it would not, since they are not doing it by means of the law. They do not need to force them by law, because key figures in Twitter and prominent leftist politicians belong to the same party and work for the same common goal - elimination of any possibility of dissenting from the partisan platform in any public space, and strict uni-party control of all speech on the internet (at least within the United States).
> Why haven't these "censored" politicians won any lawsuits to get un-censored, then
Because Twitter is a private company not covered by First Amendment, duh...
No it would not, since they are not doing it by means of the law. They do not need to force them by law, because key figures in Twitter and prominent leftist politicians belong to the same party and work for the same common goal - elimination of any possibility of dissenting from the partisan platform in any public space, and strict uni-party control of all speech on the internet (at least within the United States).
> Why haven't these "censored" politicians won any lawsuits to get un-censored, then
Because Twitter is a private company not covered by First Amendment, duh...
So was everyone on Parler guilty by default? That's an interesting way of seeing the world.
If people on the right want their own social networks, etc, that's fine. But they're going to need to have moderation and keep the violent extremism down.
I'm sure there's legitimate, law-abiding users of all of these things that get caught in the crossfire... but if the platforms will not impose a minimal amount of moderation one shouldn't be surprised that others will want to deny them services and business relationships.
I'm sure there's legitimate, law-abiding users of all of these things that get caught in the crossfire... but if the platforms will not impose a minimal amount of moderation one shouldn't be surprised that others will want to deny them services and business relationships.
Basically the whole proposition of parler was that it was a refuge for alt-right/proto-fash/actual-fash who perceive moderation on other platforms to be stifling. Yeah, I’d wager the vast majority of Parler users are either involved in the kinds of shit that finally tipped the scales or giving it safe haven.
Even if not, why is Apple or any other organization obligated to host them?
Even if not, why is Apple or any other organization obligated to host them?
> Yeah, I’d wager the vast majority of Parler users are either involved in the kinds of shit
You lost your wager. Majority of Parler users are not. If you dig enough, you can find shit - just as easy as on Twitter or Facebook, which hosts hundreds of violent groups and thousands of stupid comments which can be interpreted as advocating violence, though in 99.9% of cases it's just people being stupid on the internet - but majority of the users aren't that. It's just regular people who happen to be to the right of Jack Dorsey politically.
You lost your wager. Majority of Parler users are not. If you dig enough, you can find shit - just as easy as on Twitter or Facebook, which hosts hundreds of violent groups and thousands of stupid comments which can be interpreted as advocating violence, though in 99.9% of cases it's just people being stupid on the internet - but majority of the users aren't that. It's just regular people who happen to be to the right of Jack Dorsey politically.
This is Hacker News. Do I really need to explain that sentences clearly delineated with punctuation, with clause-joining words like “either” and “or” are an atomic thought meant to be consumed in full?
You even quoted “either” and cropped off “or”.
You even quoted “either” and cropped off “or”.
I have no idea what "giving it safe haven" in the context of social media site means (am I "giving safe haven" for everybody that ever posted on HN? am I responsible for every comment ever posted on HN?) so in the interest of sanity I answered the part which is not obviously nonsensical, since X or false == X.
On a site like HN, those kinds of behavior are moderated and known to be unwelcome. On Parler, it’s well known that they’re tolerated and implicitly welcome. Participating without challenging that is giving it a veneer of legitimacy, sheltering it, and lending plausible deniability to a platform clearly designed for them.
Even a completely galaxy brain position on speech that promotes private platforms which must allow completely unmoderated content actively promoting and organizing violence... hanging out with the people doing that is tacit endorsement.
Even a completely galaxy brain position on speech that promotes private platforms which must allow completely unmoderated content actively promoting and organizing violence... hanging out with the people doing that is tacit endorsement.
You didn't talk about moderators - you talked about users.
> Participating without challenging that is giving it a veneer of legitimacy
That's bullshit, and moreover, this is asinine and dangerous bullshit. Any idiot can write anything on a public site, and there's no moderation team in the world that can police everything with 100% accuracy. Facebook and Twitter, despite millions spent on moderation, are full of hateful content and host hundreds of violent groups. Twitter used to host Hamas and Hezbollah until 2019. Does it mean every single Twitter user until 2019 were sheltering terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah? This is just idiotic. Of course no user can know who else writes what on a large public service, and no user owes to anyone to police the content of large public service. It makes as much sense as demanding me to police the speech of everyone in my city or move out. Only my city has a million people and twitter has hundreds of millions - so it's more like either you police the speech of everyone in your country or you must emigrate. Or you are responsible for everything anybody ever said within your country. As I said, utterly asinine, idiotic and dangerous. I am not talking about specialized forums that are explicitly declared as belonging to particular movement - like Stormfront - I am talking about generic platform that is open to anybody and hosts millions.
> and lending plausible deniability to a platform clearly designed for them.
This is example of circular logic. You declare that Parler is platform for specific kind of bad people, and when you're pointed out that vast majority of the users aren't those people you claim the platform is "clearly designed" for a tiny minority and all the vast majority is just "gives plausible deniability" to them. It's like claiming the whole USA is built to enable the Zodiac Killer, and everything all the people do is just giving him veneer of legitimacy and that's the point of whole USA existing. That's how you are sounding.
> they’re tolerated and implicitly welcome
It is telling that you said "implicitly". That means you have no proof they are, but pretend to read minds of Parler users and administrators. Too bad it is explicitly knows internet telepathy does not work. On Parler, all the speech that does not violate the law is tolerated (even though it is not endorsed, or agreed with, of course). As it should be on every free platform. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's called "free speech", and once it was a value of America. Not anymore, of course.
> Participating without challenging that is giving it a veneer of legitimacy
That's bullshit, and moreover, this is asinine and dangerous bullshit. Any idiot can write anything on a public site, and there's no moderation team in the world that can police everything with 100% accuracy. Facebook and Twitter, despite millions spent on moderation, are full of hateful content and host hundreds of violent groups. Twitter used to host Hamas and Hezbollah until 2019. Does it mean every single Twitter user until 2019 were sheltering terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah? This is just idiotic. Of course no user can know who else writes what on a large public service, and no user owes to anyone to police the content of large public service. It makes as much sense as demanding me to police the speech of everyone in my city or move out. Only my city has a million people and twitter has hundreds of millions - so it's more like either you police the speech of everyone in your country or you must emigrate. Or you are responsible for everything anybody ever said within your country. As I said, utterly asinine, idiotic and dangerous. I am not talking about specialized forums that are explicitly declared as belonging to particular movement - like Stormfront - I am talking about generic platform that is open to anybody and hosts millions.
> and lending plausible deniability to a platform clearly designed for them.
This is example of circular logic. You declare that Parler is platform for specific kind of bad people, and when you're pointed out that vast majority of the users aren't those people you claim the platform is "clearly designed" for a tiny minority and all the vast majority is just "gives plausible deniability" to them. It's like claiming the whole USA is built to enable the Zodiac Killer, and everything all the people do is just giving him veneer of legitimacy and that's the point of whole USA existing. That's how you are sounding.
> they’re tolerated and implicitly welcome
It is telling that you said "implicitly". That means you have no proof they are, but pretend to read minds of Parler users and administrators. Too bad it is explicitly knows internet telepathy does not work. On Parler, all the speech that does not violate the law is tolerated (even though it is not endorsed, or agreed with, of course). As it should be on every free platform. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's called "free speech", and once it was a value of America. Not anymore, of course.
Maybe try reading some actual postings on Parler? It might surprise you.
Bunch of good apples happy to coexist with the bad ones? I accounted for that.
> Yeah, I’d wager the vast majority of Parler users are either involved in the kinds of shit that finally tipped the scales or giving it safe haven.
Where is the data please, instead of wild guesses?
Where is the data please, instead of wild guesses?
No, that was not the proposition of Parler, and it was specifically against the TOS and still is.
If they actually enforced their TOS 90% of their extremist userbase would leave, which is why a post about shooting Mike Pence by one of their most followed users could stay up for days until Apple threatened them.
“Hang Mike Pence” was trending at the top of twitter. Now what?
They’re a pre-series A startup with a very small staff. If people don’t report things, it’s not feasible to expect that they’ll all be actioned. Instead of reporting the post, activists with an agenda thought it better to cherry pick them and attack platforms. A more honest test would have been to report the content and see if they acted on it. But let’s not kid ourselves, this campaign was disingenuous from the beginning. The real goal is to shut down a perceived enemy in the culture war.
They’re a pre-series A startup with a very small staff. If people don’t report things, it’s not feasible to expect that they’ll all be actioned. Instead of reporting the post, activists with an agenda thought it better to cherry pick them and attack platforms. A more honest test would have been to report the content and see if they acted on it. But let’s not kid ourselves, this campaign was disingenuous from the beginning. The real goal is to shut down a perceived enemy in the culture war.
And yet, it’s where the people who value that proposition keep flocking. It’s almost like they understand some subtext about the service and its intent.
Didn't stop the attack on the Capitol being organized there. In fact there is another attack being organized there for the inauguration. There are many far-right watch groups tracking this.
> Didn't stop the attack on the Capitol being organized there.
If it were organized on Telegram would you ban Telegram? If it was organized by phone would you ban phones? This is just silly.
If it were organized on Telegram would you ban Telegram? If it was organized by phone would you ban phones? This is just silly.
Perhaps telegram should crack down on these channels during this crisis, yes. Parler made no attempt to turn down the temperature by removing calls for murder, assasination, or civil war.
These platforms are at this moment currently being used to mass hype up an increasingly armed and paranoid segment of the population hyped up on years of cult-like propoganda, conspiracy, and dehumanizing of their imagined enemies. It was a stroke of luck they did not take out Congress the other day, I'm sure some will try again.
If you want a clue where this ends up unabated and exploited, I encourage you to look into the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
These platforms are at this moment currently being used to mass hype up an increasingly armed and paranoid segment of the population hyped up on years of cult-like propoganda, conspiracy, and dehumanizing of their imagined enemies. It was a stroke of luck they did not take out Congress the other day, I'm sure some will try again.
If you want a clue where this ends up unabated and exploited, I encourage you to look into the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
TOS doesn’t mean anything if they aren’t enforced.
They are. Go ahead and report something, then let us know how long it stays up.
People organize violence on twitter almost every single day.
People organize violence on twitter almost every single day.
Considering their target audience, yes.
Here’s the irony: Parler has been banning “liberals” and “leftists” for months. It’s an overtly political platform and clearly for a particular political ideology.
Parler doesn't ban anyone but actual trolls and crazies who post porn, promote commercial content, or post vindictive or violent content. Pretty much the same TOS as most other platforms.
Trolling isn't free speech?
There’s nothing wrong with enabling a platform which is overtly political. If I want to start a libertarian-only dating site...why not?
There is everything wrong with enabling a platform which actively supports violence.
There is everything wrong with enabling a platform which actively supports violence.
Though we need to carve out some exceptions, like people discussing UFC
centimeter(1)
> It’s an overtly political platform and clearly for a particular political ideology.
You could say exactly the same for Twitter (remember the Hunter Biden laptop story? Of no you don't, because it was censored there), or even Google which clearly de-prioritizes search results based on their ideologies.
You could say exactly the same for Twitter (remember the Hunter Biden laptop story? Of no you don't, because it was censored there), or even Google which clearly de-prioritizes search results based on their ideologies.
No, but the people not calling for violence probably still have their twitter and facebook accounts so we arent talking about them.
> Political ideology that is unethical deserves no platform
I like the implication that ~half the country is just blanket "unethical" and doesn't deserve to speak.
I like the implication that ~half the country is just blanket "unethical" and doesn't deserve to speak.
I'm pretty okay with silencing racism, fascism, nationalism, and misogynism, myself. How about you?
I'm pretty not okay with silencing everybody that anybody can call "racism", provided that pretty much anything nowdays can be called racist - from Abraham Lincoln (https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/university/uw-m...) to yoga (https://www.foxnews.com/us/americans-who-practice-yoga-contr...). Sorry, can't find a "z" one, but I'm sure somebody somewhere called it racist too. So no, I'm not OK with banning everything from Abraham Lincoln to yoga.
Zionism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...
You're welcome.
I'm pretty okay with the Abe Lincoln angle, but the yoga article is ridiculously fringe thinking that nobody could possibly take seriously.
You're welcome.
I'm pretty okay with the Abe Lincoln angle, but the yoga article is ridiculously fringe thinking that nobody could possibly take seriously.
Of course, Zionism, that was easy. So I guess Israel gets to be booted off the internet too. No problem, it's not like they have any hitech industry to speak of.
One day I'd say the idea that AWS is booting people for disagreement with their political stances is a "ridiculously fringe thinking". Or that monuments to Lincoln and Washington (and also Cervantes and Frederick Douglass, why not) will be destroyed as racist is a "ridiculously fringe thinking" and would laugh at anyone suggesting this. Today it is our ridiculous reality.
One day I'd say the idea that AWS is booting people for disagreement with their political stances is a "ridiculously fringe thinking". Or that monuments to Lincoln and Washington (and also Cervantes and Frederick Douglass, why not) will be destroyed as racist is a "ridiculously fringe thinking" and would laugh at anyone suggesting this. Today it is our ridiculous reality.
I'm totally okay with suppressing the influence of an apartheid state. Are you?
Pretty much everyone was racist 120 years ago. Less, even, but, still 120 years ago is a safe buffer. I don't think building monuments to people who ordered the massacre of natives in the name of manifest destiny is a great idea, just as I don't think having monuments to Nathan Bedford Forrest is a great idea, either.
America's fetishization of its dead rulers is really second only to ancient Rome, a culture where they literally proclaimed their dead rulers to be gods. Lincoln, Washington, and Cervantes were racist, because the times they lived in were racist. We can do better, and uncritical reverence doesn't help us do that.
Pretty much everyone was racist 120 years ago. Less, even, but, still 120 years ago is a safe buffer. I don't think building monuments to people who ordered the massacre of natives in the name of manifest destiny is a great idea, just as I don't think having monuments to Nathan Bedford Forrest is a great idea, either.
America's fetishization of its dead rulers is really second only to ancient Rome, a culture where they literally proclaimed their dead rulers to be gods. Lincoln, Washington, and Cervantes were racist, because the times they lived in were racist. We can do better, and uncritical reverence doesn't help us do that.
> I'm totally okay with suppressing the influence of an apartheid state. Are you?
It looks like you just are OK to suppress any point of view that you don't like. And not OK with freedom of speech. Fortunately for you - and unfortunately for everybody for whom it's still valuable - US is no longer a country where freedom of speech exists. I am not OK with this, and I think we are entering a period in American history which will be looked by descendants with deep shame and disgust, and this is due to people like you. Welcome to your 1984, and hope you never utter an unpopular thought.
It looks like you just are OK to suppress any point of view that you don't like. And not OK with freedom of speech. Fortunately for you - and unfortunately for everybody for whom it's still valuable - US is no longer a country where freedom of speech exists. I am not OK with this, and I think we are entering a period in American history which will be looked by descendants with deep shame and disgust, and this is due to people like you. Welcome to your 1984, and hope you never utter an unpopular thought.
I'm okay suppressing vile points of view such as racism, misogyny, and nationalism, as I said. I, for one, welcome a world where those ideas aren't welcome.
Nope, you are just okay suppressing points of view you didn't like, while calling them vile names such as "racism, misogyny, and nationalism". You just dismissed the whole 7 million country - and didn't feel a thing. And the world you are welcoming by it is the world of 1984 and Fahrenheit 451. The only different thing is that in your world books aren't be burned - that is bad for climate change. They will be - already are - quietly deleted from the servers. You are the dystopia that we've been warned about by 20th century writers. We failed to prevent you. Now it's for us to despair for the lost freedom and for you to hope to never cross your new masters (but know you will, sooner or later).
When Israel decides they want to recognize the rights of the Palestinians, as far as I'm concerned, they're welcome to come out and play.
It's clearly a losing position to argue that AWS should ban content related to Abraham Lincoln grounds of racism. In fact, this so egregiously fails the "smell test" that I don't think it's a useful analogy for this week's events.
Who said they should?
Zoroastrianism?
Best I could find is this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2013/dec/08... which implies it's an ethno-centric religion, so a hostile observer surely could call it "racist" (in an extended sense, where "racism" means exclusion by any ethnic origin, not just specifically the color of one's skin - just as antisemitism is commonly considered under the same term, even if majority of Jews it's directed at are of the same race as their persecutors).
Maybe, but I'm not even sure if there are many Zoroastrians left, much less whether they're racist or not.
I'm not ok with completely silencing anyone, but I am ok with extreme toxicity correlating with difficulty of amplification.
I don't think alex jones should be cut off from the internet or his home ISP, but I don't think twitter, facebook, youtube, google or anyone else has an obligation to broadcast him if they choose not to for example.
I don't think alex jones should be cut off from the internet or his home ISP, but I don't think twitter, facebook, youtube, google or anyone else has an obligation to broadcast him if they choose not to for example.
> I'm pretty okay with silencing racism, fascism, nationalism, and misogynism
And progressives have redefined these words to encompass basically every single political belief of ~half the country. Say something semantically meaningful.
And progressives have redefined these words to encompass basically every single political belief of ~half the country. Say something semantically meaningful.
Exactly. By calling all the filth and calls for violence on Parler "conservative", you really aren't helping your metrics in trying to win elections in the future.
shripadk(1)
What does that even mean? Obama literally had his own drone kill list; he personally authorized the drone-execution of multiple American citizens abroad without trial. Yet much more than keeping Twitter access, he got a Nobel peace prize.
"Unethical" is a post-hoc rationalization; what we're seeing now goes much deeper than that.
"Unethical" is a post-hoc rationalization; what we're seeing now goes much deeper than that.
Well, this sounds like a monopoly problem, not a free speech problem.
If Apple were forced to allow alternative app stores this wouldn't be an issue. Note that they don't have to advertise or host these stores, merely not actively design their products and TOS to prohibit them.
But then of course they'd risk losing out on some of that sweet, sweet 30% cut.
I see this concern pointing not at stronger protections for speech, but stronger anti-trust enforcement.
If Apple were forced to allow alternative app stores this wouldn't be an issue. Note that they don't have to advertise or host these stores, merely not actively design their products and TOS to prohibit them.
But then of course they'd risk losing out on some of that sweet, sweet 30% cut.
I see this concern pointing not at stronger protections for speech, but stronger anti-trust enforcement.
Yes, fascists living in their own bubble end up congregating just with fascists because most of the rest of society doesn't want anything to do with them. This is a recurring theme in history.
trident5000(2)
There are a lot more people on Parler already than there are fascists.
Consider what this looks - and feels - like from their perspective.
I’m actively watching people I grew up with who have never been involved in politics at all become increasingly aware of this push. Do you think they’re going to be open to liberalism when this is their first interaction with it as an ideology?
Consider what this looks - and feels - like from their perspective.
I’m actively watching people I grew up with who have never been involved in politics at all become increasingly aware of this push. Do you think they’re going to be open to liberalism when this is their first interaction with it as an ideology?
So they slept through four years of Trump and this outrage is the first step in their Great Awakening? I'll go out on a limb and suggest that they were never going to be "open to liberalism" in the first place.
Anyone using the place is a fascist by definition. If they haven't been involved in politics until now, their perspective doesn't deserve to be heard.
Your post inspired me to track down an old essay I saw on arguing by definition:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cFzC996D7Jjds3vS9/arguing-by...
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cFzC996D7Jjds3vS9/arguing-by...
I don't think that type of language helps anything. Are you suggesting that conservatism is now synonymous with fascism?
It seems ludicrous to suggest that millions of conservatives across the US are fascists. It isn't productive nor does it offer any solutions for people to communicate, resolve their differences, and coexist.
It seems ludicrous to suggest that millions of conservatives across the US are fascists. It isn't productive nor does it offer any solutions for people to communicate, resolve their differences, and coexist.
Yes, that is exactly what I am implying. If you follow an egomaniac, misogynist, sociopathic coward who wants a personality cult at the cost of democracy, and you're dumb or ignorant enough to follow that guy, by definition that makes you a fascist.
I don't even know what "fascist" means any more. :(
More to the point, Trumpism is synonymous with authoritarianism. (A particularly lazy and incompetent authoritarianism, fortunately.)
Trump support is now synonymous with fascism. The die was cast when Congress was attacked in an attempted coup.
Not all conservatives are Trump supporters.
Not all conservatives are Trump supporters.
Trump won 74MM votes, I think it's safe to say for that all intents and purposes a conservative is a Trump supporter.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/2020-election-numbers
https://www.cfr.org/blog/2020-election-numbers
The vast majority support overturning the election to install their own leader.
What would you call that?
What would you call that?
> The vast majority support overturning the election to install their own leader
That's an opinion and a generalization of tens of millions of people.
That's an opinion and a generalization of tens of millions of people.
It's an opinion backed up by solid, repeatable polling of Republicans and conservatives in general.
Example: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/23/2020-election-results-almost...
Example: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/23/2020-election-results-almost...
It’s a widely held opinion, but it’s also complete bullshit with no evidence to support it.
Except all those polls. Let's see yours.
Those polls show that most people don’t show that the election was stolen.
So if we were going by polls, it’s clearly complete bullshit.
But polls aren’t evidence. There is no evidence. If there were, it would have been presented, and Trump would be on his way to his second term.
Here is a poll:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/capitol-siege-majority-americans-t...
Does this make it true that Trump should resign?
So if we were going by polls, it’s clearly complete bullshit.
But polls aren’t evidence. There is no evidence. If there were, it would have been presented, and Trump would be on his way to his second term.
Here is a poll:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/capitol-siege-majority-americans-t...
Does this make it true that Trump should resign?
We're talking about conservatives, not people in general. Don't move the goalposts.
I’m not - I’m pointing out that the fact that a minority of the country thinks something simply is not evidence that it is true.
Opinion polls are not evidence of truth.
Opinion polls are not evidence of truth.
Tens of millions of people who are, and always have been, more concerned about fake voter fraud than actual voter suppression.
I think we can all agree that a key tenancy of fascism is suppression of dissent, often violently. These companies effectively are the public square.
Dead cops and civilians are not a political ideology. Don’t conflate incitement for free speech.
It's not about political ideology. It's about preventing what seems to be a clear case of violence inciting posts (many websites are sharing those screenshots). This should NOT be allowed in the garb of "free speech".
We can't live in a world where people are allowed to openly plot the death of other people.
I'm a fairly active Twitter user and I experience it solely via the mobile website as I try to reduce the number of apps I install (and data I expose to said apps), so I don't actually think this is as monumental as people act. Furthermore, I downloaded Parler to see how it works and it's actually a pretty bad experience, janky UI, crazy latency, bad search - they've got bigger problems than the App Store.
Parler just needs to enforce their own policies and this wouldn't be an issue. They wouldn't need to bend their will to anyone's political agenda, just enforce the policies they themselves espouse.
When will people ask Twitter, FB etc. to do the same?
They could certainly do a world better, but neither were as bad as Parler who basically laid out guidelines but made zero effort to enforce them.
Twitter and FB, for all their failings, appear to basically be operating in good faith (re. removing incitements toward violence). One cannot seriously say that about Parler.
I thin that this misses the point. The fringes and conspiracy theorists grow by catching new people from the mainstream. If you segregate the extremists from the center, you can starve the extremists.
Who decides who the the extremists are?
Regardless of the precise definition, it seems quite clear that it ought to include those who organize premeditated violence. This is not exactly a slippery slope.
Just ban people who spout violence towards people for what amounts to the crime of existing, who spout conspiracies that are divorced from reality.
You don’t choose who is extremist, you ban the abusive content. Extremists the mostly post that are functionally banned - that’s what Twitter does. You don’t get to report “this person is abusive” just tweets that have to be abusive on their own.
You don’t choose who is extremist, you ban the abusive content. Extremists the mostly post that are functionally banned - that’s what Twitter does. You don’t get to report “this person is abusive” just tweets that have to be abusive on their own.
People who are easily swayed to hate and dismiss everyone with a different opinion.
Why wouldn't the reasons for Parler being removed from application marketplaces be extricated from the more mainstream elements of the political ideology?
Why not say "hey, get out of our party! you're not welcome here. we are against the extremist views you hold, and you're making it harder for us as a party to gather and share our ideas"?
Why not say "hey, get out of our party! you're not welcome here. we are against the extremist views you hold, and you're making it harder for us as a party to gather and share our ideas"?
What happens when the 5G conspiracy nuts want this hypothetical new platform to be forced to use old decommissioning networks? Appease them to keep the platform together, or accept that probably most of them will shut up and use the newer networks and let the rest go their separate ways?
[deleted]
That wouldn't be new. There have always been media that target specific audiences.
These are the same people who say "WeLl WhY dOnT u ReWrItE iT iN C???"
Now they have to also build a new hosting company. They will so AWS just created a new competitor and also made every company have to consider a new existential risk of getting kicked off of AWS.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> At this point we are heading towards a complete mitosis of our information channels based on political ideology.
This isn't a new thing though? People have always sought out information channels that reinforce their own views. Twitter/FB/Youtube were already infamous for presenting entirely different streams of content to left and right wing audiences. When they were less popular it was Fox vs MSNBC/CNN etc. and before that the newspaper you read.
The issue we're seeing now is that people are being attacked by a torrent of information. You're much more likely to be radicalised if every 5 minutes you get a tweet notification about the latest "deep state paedophilia ring"; compared to receiving a monthly newsletter that can be analysed and picked apart in the interim period.
This isn't a new thing though? People have always sought out information channels that reinforce their own views. Twitter/FB/Youtube were already infamous for presenting entirely different streams of content to left and right wing audiences. When they were less popular it was Fox vs MSNBC/CNN etc. and before that the newspaper you read.
The issue we're seeing now is that people are being attacked by a torrent of information. You're much more likely to be radicalised if every 5 minutes you get a tweet notification about the latest "deep state paedophilia ring"; compared to receiving a monthly newsletter that can be analysed and picked apart in the interim period.
Now that Parler also is booted from AWS, it's basically "build a new internet".
"Build your own services if you like free speech so much" was never a honest proposition. It was a "shut up" proposition - because when, to the surprise of the censors, it was built and was successful, they took all possible measures to destroy it. They were never for "we will have our own and you can have our own" - it always was "we will control everything and you will shut up and do what you told".
Whatever are your political leanings and whatever you think of Trump or Parler - if this thing - total and absolute control of a handful of corporations over what can be spoken on the internet, and their willingness to ruthlessly exercise this control to suppress any non-censorious companies - if this thing is not scaring you, you're delusional. You probably think you will never commit wrongthink so it doesn't apply to you. Read some history, it never worked this way, it won't work this way this time either. Censorship, allowed to run free, always gets worse.
"Build your own services if you like free speech so much" was never a honest proposition. It was a "shut up" proposition - because when, to the surprise of the censors, it was built and was successful, they took all possible measures to destroy it. They were never for "we will have our own and you can have our own" - it always was "we will control everything and you will shut up and do what you told".
Whatever are your political leanings and whatever you think of Trump or Parler - if this thing - total and absolute control of a handful of corporations over what can be spoken on the internet, and their willingness to ruthlessly exercise this control to suppress any non-censorious companies - if this thing is not scaring you, you're delusional. You probably think you will never commit wrongthink so it doesn't apply to you. Read some history, it never worked this way, it won't work this way this time either. Censorship, allowed to run free, always gets worse.
Your entire argument pins on this being censorship.
Amazon is not a state utility.
Amazon is not the internet.
Amazon has the right to fire a customer.
If Parler built their product without considering vendor dependencies that is on them.
Frankly your argument is hyperbolic and is better suited for reddit than a forum that actually understands what it takes to build a service like Parler.
While unrelated to this issue, Parler's ux and service as a whole was awful. They were collecting and storing tons of personal information and were funded by the Mercer's.
Apple, Google, and Amazon are doing Parler users a favor.
Amazon is not a state utility.
Amazon is not the internet.
Amazon has the right to fire a customer.
If Parler built their product without considering vendor dependencies that is on them.
Frankly your argument is hyperbolic and is better suited for reddit than a forum that actually understands what it takes to build a service like Parler.
While unrelated to this issue, Parler's ux and service as a whole was awful. They were collecting and storing tons of personal information and were funded by the Mercer's.
Apple, Google, and Amazon are doing Parler users a favor.
You are arguing with somebody who told you Amazon has no legal right to cancel the contract. That somebody is not me.
> If Parler built their product without considering vendor dependencies that is on them.
"You fucked up. You trusted us". (C)
Parler was operating under naive assumptions that Amazon does not ban services for partisan political reasons. It was reasonable assumption in America pre-2021, but now it's clearly a different America. Where to participate in the internet, you have to pass ideological purity test. I can predict what happens next: Parler would be blocked by the majority of CDNs, payment processors and hosting/DNS providers. And you'll be saying "well, they are idiots for relying on the existing internet without considering the dependencies. They should have just built their own internet, their own banking system and their own payment system."
> While unrelated to this issue, Parler's ux and service as a whole was awful.
If it's unrelated, why mention it? To create an impression services with bad UX (which is not true btw, especially compared to Facebook whose UX is atrocious) deserve to be silenced?
> Apple, Google, and Amazon are doing Parler users a favor.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
> If Parler built their product without considering vendor dependencies that is on them.
"You fucked up. You trusted us". (C)
Parler was operating under naive assumptions that Amazon does not ban services for partisan political reasons. It was reasonable assumption in America pre-2021, but now it's clearly a different America. Where to participate in the internet, you have to pass ideological purity test. I can predict what happens next: Parler would be blocked by the majority of CDNs, payment processors and hosting/DNS providers. And you'll be saying "well, they are idiots for relying on the existing internet without considering the dependencies. They should have just built their own internet, their own banking system and their own payment system."
> While unrelated to this issue, Parler's ux and service as a whole was awful.
If it's unrelated, why mention it? To create an impression services with bad UX (which is not true btw, especially compared to Facebook whose UX is atrocious) deserve to be silenced?
> Apple, Google, and Amazon are doing Parler users a favor.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Parler should be blocked wholesale, it is acting as an unmoderated radicalization engine for terrorists that attempted a coup. They are actively planning another attempt as we speak.
You are defending a group of people that has shown they are intolerant, violent, and unrepentant.
Nobody is saying they can't sit around and drink beers at home at talk about burning down the capitol, they are just saying you can't do it on their infrastructure.
This is no different than when everyone was banning ISIS a few years ago. These groups are self radicalized and have lost the right to protected speech.
You are defending a group of people that has shown they are intolerant, violent, and unrepentant.
Nobody is saying they can't sit around and drink beers at home at talk about burning down the capitol, they are just saying you can't do it on their infrastructure.
This is no different than when everyone was banning ISIS a few years ago. These groups are self radicalized and have lost the right to protected speech.
That's bullshit. There's no terrorists and no coup. Bunch of people occupying one building for a couple of hours is a lamest "coup" ever existed, and something that antifa and other protestors have done many times, including occupying Wisconsin Capitol for several days: https://isthmus.com/news/cover-story/capitol-occupation-walk... That's days, not hours. Nobody said anything about "coup". And calling those people "terrorist" is a grave insult to the victims of actual terrorists. This idiotic overblown rhetoric is a propagandist trick, especially heinous after we've been told for months that nationwide riots that caused billions of damage and many dead and injured are "mostly peaceful".
> This is no different than when everyone was banning ISIS a few years ago.
There's a huge difference between American citizens protesting and ISIS. There's also a huge difference between the service that allows people some of whom support the same politician that some of the protestors to speak and ISIS. Declaring that any service that allows people who support the same politician as anybody who commits a crime to be the same as ISIS would make everybody in the US ISIS - e.g. James T. Hodgkinson supported Sanders, so any service that allows any Sanders supporter to speak now ISIS? Bullshit.
> This is no different than when everyone was banning ISIS a few years ago.
There's a huge difference between American citizens protesting and ISIS. There's also a huge difference between the service that allows people some of whom support the same politician that some of the protestors to speak and ISIS. Declaring that any service that allows people who support the same politician as anybody who commits a crime to be the same as ISIS would make everybody in the US ISIS - e.g. James T. Hodgkinson supported Sanders, so any service that allows any Sanders supporter to speak now ISIS? Bullshit.
I agree that it was a lame coup, but that is par for the course with anything the right attempts. They failed but it wasn't for lack of trying.
A terrorist is anyone who perpetuates violence in order to achieve a political goal, and it is pretty clear that was the case when they attempted to stop the certification process.
As far as victims of terrorism are concerned, I think this officers family would be "gravely insulted" by how far you have managed to shove your head up your own ass.
https://teddit.net/r/PublicFreakout/comments/kucaz0/the_mome...
You are either ignorant of what is happening or attempting to discount the reality of it. Either way you are part of the problem and I look forward to a day when sycophants like you are held accountable for your role in bringing us to the brink of fascism.
A terrorist is anyone who perpetuates violence in order to achieve a political goal, and it is pretty clear that was the case when they attempted to stop the certification process.
As far as victims of terrorism are concerned, I think this officers family would be "gravely insulted" by how far you have managed to shove your head up your own ass.
https://teddit.net/r/PublicFreakout/comments/kucaz0/the_mome...
You are either ignorant of what is happening or attempting to discount the reality of it. Either way you are part of the problem and I look forward to a day when sycophants like you are held accountable for your role in bringing us to the brink of fascism.
“for partisan political reasons”
Is avoiding liability for organizing violence a ‘partisan political reason’?
Is avoiding liability for organizing violence a ‘partisan political reason’?
No, but nobody ever in anybodies wildest dreams would hold Apple liable for having one application in the store (among thousands) that belongs to one service (among dozens) that a couple of users (among millions) once discussed organizing violence (which they never organized, and the violence that happened has no relation to anything there). Pretending like Apple (or Google, or Twitter, or Facebook) censor politically because they want to "avoid liability" is either ignorance or hope that your opponent is so ignorant that they do not know what liability is and how it works.
Apple is perfectly within their rights as a private company to ban applications from their platform solely based on it's user base being a huge gaggle of toxic assholes.
I don't think you will find any sympathy for neo-fascists here.
Parler is taking Apple to court over this, which will be hilarious to watch.
I don't think you will find any sympathy for neo-fascists here.
Parler is taking Apple to court over this, which will be hilarious to watch.
Apple was targeted by left wing activists for just hosting the NRA App.
Liability comes in many forms.
Liability comes in many forms.
"Targeted" and "liability" are two different things. You can be targeted by left wing activists for literally anything. There are people who think yoga and veganism and SpongeBob SquarePants are racist. But Apple knows very well there's no "liability" in that and he doesn't have to jump each time a loudmouth on the internet gets vapors. When they do something, it's because they want to do it, not because some kind of "liability".
Sure. If you build a new phone OS, twitter and facebook can try to stop you by not writing apps for it, or possibly even detecting that a user of your hardware is trying to visit them and block the connection. Same difference.
When apple blocks an app for nebulous reasons (such as the hey.com debacle), that's annoying. When google blocks an app because the authors are running a bitcoin miner or other scam, then everybody rejoices. When the microsoft phone blocks an app because it lets you screenshare to machines running linux or apple's OS, people reach for the phone to call their lawyer or representative to start proceedings on anti-trust. When the linux phone blocks an app because they are legally obligated to do this, as a judge has informed them they are compelled to do so because the app is a marketplace for murder contracts, I think most people rejoice as well.
There is no absolute rule to make sense of that. It's what society, preferably, but not neccessarily codified in law, is going to stand for. It's not an easy rule. "Prevent companies from banning anything for any reason" means you end up with marketplaces for murder and viruses/miners/user-hostile stuff. And no cheating by allowing google to paste big warnings on an app download. Who decides what text is in that warning, and who decides which user-hostile stuff warrants this banner? Apple? We're right back to where we started.
If outlawing censorship is not feasible (or it is, but you're going to have to tell me how, because the obvious route leads to far greater problems), then the only other option I can think of is to break up these companies. Ensure there are many.
This also does not work. One of the better examples of this, is the internet itself: You'd think _anyone_ can host _whatever_ they want, and unless it is clearly deeply criminal, you can find somebody to host it for you. In countries with creative laws if you must.
Except, that's just not how it works. There are about 8 major CDNs on the planet. If they all decide they want nothing to do with you, it is very hard to host stuff. 8kun and co run into this problem from time to time. At least one of these CDNs is acutely aware of the grave responsibility and blogs about their struggles with it. Do you allow a hate-spewing platform inciting crimes, or do you become judge jury and executioner on speech?
Perhaps 8 is enough, but 2 is not enough. So, if the plan is to split up these companies, how many phone platforms are legally required? How much can they work together? Should the US codify into law that it is illegal to buy an iPhone if apple's marketshare exceeds 50% (as iOS is the most popular platform in the US, just naming as an example). Should a country find social networks and start handing out fines if too many within it use the same marketplace?
I get the concern, but without more detail, you're engaging in something I find rather problematic: Pointing at an incredibly complicated problem, making a pithy statement about how bad that is, but then not naming a solution to this problem, and insinuating the solution is easy (maybe I'm imagining it, but the drama of your conclusion, whilst perhaps warranted, sure does sound like a "somebody should DO something" kinda claim. It disregards the complex nature of trying to address the issue).
So, let me turn it around: Okay. Yes, this is a bit scary, I agree.
What do we do about it?
When apple blocks an app for nebulous reasons (such as the hey.com debacle), that's annoying. When google blocks an app because the authors are running a bitcoin miner or other scam, then everybody rejoices. When the microsoft phone blocks an app because it lets you screenshare to machines running linux or apple's OS, people reach for the phone to call their lawyer or representative to start proceedings on anti-trust. When the linux phone blocks an app because they are legally obligated to do this, as a judge has informed them they are compelled to do so because the app is a marketplace for murder contracts, I think most people rejoice as well.
There is no absolute rule to make sense of that. It's what society, preferably, but not neccessarily codified in law, is going to stand for. It's not an easy rule. "Prevent companies from banning anything for any reason" means you end up with marketplaces for murder and viruses/miners/user-hostile stuff. And no cheating by allowing google to paste big warnings on an app download. Who decides what text is in that warning, and who decides which user-hostile stuff warrants this banner? Apple? We're right back to where we started.
If outlawing censorship is not feasible (or it is, but you're going to have to tell me how, because the obvious route leads to far greater problems), then the only other option I can think of is to break up these companies. Ensure there are many.
This also does not work. One of the better examples of this, is the internet itself: You'd think _anyone_ can host _whatever_ they want, and unless it is clearly deeply criminal, you can find somebody to host it for you. In countries with creative laws if you must.
Except, that's just not how it works. There are about 8 major CDNs on the planet. If they all decide they want nothing to do with you, it is very hard to host stuff. 8kun and co run into this problem from time to time. At least one of these CDNs is acutely aware of the grave responsibility and blogs about their struggles with it. Do you allow a hate-spewing platform inciting crimes, or do you become judge jury and executioner on speech?
Perhaps 8 is enough, but 2 is not enough. So, if the plan is to split up these companies, how many phone platforms are legally required? How much can they work together? Should the US codify into law that it is illegal to buy an iPhone if apple's marketshare exceeds 50% (as iOS is the most popular platform in the US, just naming as an example). Should a country find social networks and start handing out fines if too many within it use the same marketplace?
I get the concern, but without more detail, you're engaging in something I find rather problematic: Pointing at an incredibly complicated problem, making a pithy statement about how bad that is, but then not naming a solution to this problem, and insinuating the solution is easy (maybe I'm imagining it, but the drama of your conclusion, whilst perhaps warranted, sure does sound like a "somebody should DO something" kinda claim. It disregards the complex nature of trying to address the issue).
So, let me turn it around: Okay. Yes, this is a bit scary, I agree.
What do we do about it?
Orrrr the right wing could learn to not be complete assholes to the point where all their providers refuse to serve them
If you are so dedicated to having a platform that hosts direct calls for violence and murder, then create your own hosting service too.
The audiences won’t be the same size. The harder it gets to keep following the conversation to new platforms, the more it will only be the most hardcore people at the eventual destination.
This is not a bad thing. The people who are really dedicated will still have a place to gather and communicate, but pedestrians and kids will have a lower chance of getting tricked into giving their time, money, and maybe even their lives to amoral scammers.
This is not a bad thing. The people who are really dedicated will still have a place to gather and communicate, but pedestrians and kids will have a lower chance of getting tricked into giving their time, money, and maybe even their lives to amoral scammers.
I would argue the public is at a much higher risk of being tricked by giant monopolistic media organisations with very private interests than fringe lunatics. Murdoch was bad, but at least you didn't have to communicate through his tabloids.
Underneath all of this seems to be this assumption that Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey etc. are benevolent, and won't betray you. Putting aside whether that's right, it's incredibly short-sighted. Jack Dorsey owns 2% of Twitter's stock. Twitter is owned by index funds - they have control, not Jack. You don't want private equity dictating what kind of propaganda you're allowed to see.
Underneath all of this seems to be this assumption that Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey etc. are benevolent, and won't betray you. Putting aside whether that's right, it's incredibly short-sighted. Jack Dorsey owns 2% of Twitter's stock. Twitter is owned by index funds - they have control, not Jack. You don't want private equity dictating what kind of propaganda you're allowed to see.
This is a nonsense argument because the ownership structure of Twitter has not changed in 7 years. People are not getting booted now because of who the executives or investors are, they are betting booted because of what they chose to say on Twitter.
I don’t trust anyone to “not betray me.” I trust that if Twitter makes unpopular moderation decisions, they will lose in the marketplace. But if they make popular decisions, they will succeed in the marketplace, even if those decisions piss some people off. This is the basis for all platform moderation, including here on HN, or even something as simple as a grocery store asking a shouting customer to leave.
I don’t trust anyone to “not betray me.” I trust that if Twitter makes unpopular moderation decisions, they will lose in the marketplace. But if they make popular decisions, they will succeed in the marketplace, even if those decisions piss some people off. This is the basis for all platform moderation, including here on HN, or even something as simple as a grocery store asking a shouting customer to leave.
I understand where you're coming from but I don't think a coordinated ban of the sitting president across platforms is equivalent to a forum ban. And I don't think you think that either.
Look, I'm not trying to argue this "wasn't a special case". I'm saying, it doesn't matter. If you want a president silenced, have congress vote on it, not Vanguard and Goldman Sachs.
You're giving private equity the power to unilaterally decide what they deem "threatening", and I expect them to abuse that power. Like, obviously they'll abuse it, it's private equity. Why on earth wouldn't they?
Look, I'm not trying to argue this "wasn't a special case". I'm saying, it doesn't matter. If you want a president silenced, have congress vote on it, not Vanguard and Goldman Sachs.
You're giving private equity the power to unilaterally decide what they deem "threatening", and I expect them to abuse that power. Like, obviously they'll abuse it, it's private equity. Why on earth wouldn't they?
I'm having a real hard time understanding how all the comments in the thread are in favor of this.
I mean, even if you disagree with the idea of Parler, how can one willingly support this kind of censorship?
"First they came for the XYZ and I didn't care because I wasn't XYZ, then they came for the ..., and then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me"
I mean, even if you disagree with the idea of Parler, how can one willingly support this kind of censorship?
"First they came for the XYZ and I didn't care because I wasn't XYZ, then they came for the ..., and then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me"
Anyone is free to set up a computer in their basement, install a web server, open up port 80 to the world, and serve to the world whatever blog or forum they want. This is the beauty of the web. They can scale it up as traffic grows and deal with all those headaches if they want. I fully support the owners of Parler if they want to do this.
Twitter, FB, AWS, Google eventually came along and said “ok, you want to share your ideas or host a community, we can make that really easy with our tools and platforms!” You can post what you want without worrying about servers in your basement. But in exchange for that convenience you have to accept that they reserve the right to terminate the contract at any time. They should not be required to help you promote ideas that they deem harmful or toxic.
So Parler can go back to how we used to do things in the 90s...it’s a little harder but not that hard. No one is being censored. This is simply a few companies deciding to terminate a relationship with one of their clients.
Twitter, FB, AWS, Google eventually came along and said “ok, you want to share your ideas or host a community, we can make that really easy with our tools and platforms!” You can post what you want without worrying about servers in your basement. But in exchange for that convenience you have to accept that they reserve the right to terminate the contract at any time. They should not be required to help you promote ideas that they deem harmful or toxic.
So Parler can go back to how we used to do things in the 90s...it’s a little harder but not that hard. No one is being censored. This is simply a few companies deciding to terminate a relationship with one of their clients.
> Anyone is free to set up a computer in their basement, install a web server, open up port 80 to the world, and serve to the world whatever blog or forum they want.
Only until their ISP decides to do the same thing Amazon did (or buckles under the DDoS attacks that will happen). Or their registrar or DNS provider, assuming you don't consider domains optional too.
Only until their ISP decides to do the same thing Amazon did (or buckles under the DDoS attacks that will happen). Or their registrar or DNS provider, assuming you don't consider domains optional too.
Do you have examples of ISPs doing this to companies like Parler?
Nazi site The Daily Stormer was infamously dropped by GoDaddy, Google, Tucows, Cloudflare, Namecheap, DreamHost, and various others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Stormer#Site_hosting...
8chan was shut down by Cloudflare, Tucows, Voxility and others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8chan#August_2019_removal_from...
I'm surprised these sites haven't been disconnected at the BGP level yet; maybe that will happen this year.
8chan was shut down by Cloudflare, Tucows, Voxility and others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8chan#August_2019_removal_from...
I'm surprised these sites haven't been disconnected at the BGP level yet; maybe that will happen this year.
None of those are ISPs? Fios does not block me from accessing arbitrary IP addresses.
everyone has a limit. for google, amazon, Twitter, Facebook, tik tok, Twitch and reddit. It is the point when there are screams for violence against lawmakers, the vice president, the president elect, the speaker of the house and the speaker of the senate. These are no empty threats as we saw last week and the companies which have the data are seeing plans for more violence being made on their platforms. They know more than we are and they are reacting like this. I think it will get worse in the next days and if there is a coup you are complicit and more important if your intentions in this post are honorable you will try to discuss the exact same thing we are discussing right now and will be shutdown and laughed at.
This is no morale debate anymore your choice is life or death. As a German I think about 1923 the attempted beer house coup in Munich and the lax response to Adolf Hitler and can only shake my heads at people like you.
At least I hope your sentiment comes from a high morale standpoint and not from misdirection as so many are in these threads.
This is no morale debate anymore your choice is life or death. As a German I think about 1923 the attempted beer house coup in Munich and the lax response to Adolf Hitler and can only shake my heads at people like you.
At least I hope your sentiment comes from a high morale standpoint and not from misdirection as so many are in these threads.
If there we screams for violence then prosecute those people. This is blanket censorship and anti competitive monopoly capitalism. Gear up for the gulags, because that's where this leads.
So in your mind the choice is between gulags and concentration camps and you are saying you want the concentration camps, noted.
I want neither options and behold the screams of people like yourself this is unprecedented that we the people or companies have the power to surpress calls for violence and sedition from a government working on a coup to stop the will of their own people. I am glad that we try it with whatever will come of it because we know from history what will happen if we do not.
If you look at the media outlets left and right they decided to pull trump of the air for much less and we don't see even fox, oan or other right wing media giving him a platform. 90% of the censorship calls are one-sided as well I see no one screaming about parler or thedonald.win banning progressive politicians or users on sight. your bias shows and it's abhorrent.
I want neither options and behold the screams of people like yourself this is unprecedented that we the people or companies have the power to surpress calls for violence and sedition from a government working on a coup to stop the will of their own people. I am glad that we try it with whatever will come of it because we know from history what will happen if we do not.
If you look at the media outlets left and right they decided to pull trump of the air for much less and we don't see even fox, oan or other right wing media giving him a platform. 90% of the censorship calls are one-sided as well I see no one screaming about parler or thedonald.win banning progressive politicians or users on sight. your bias shows and it's abhorrent.
Most of the western democracies (all?)except the US don't have that unregulated concept of free speech.
I don't see and hear anything about gulags in GB, France or Germany. They just don't have mobs trying to overtrhow the gouvernemnt.
I'm sorry to disappoint you. We had something like this in Germany around August [0]. We call them "querdenker" and they are basically a group of neonazis, esoteric people, covid is a hoax people and right wingers.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tUIH3GqGdQ
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tUIH3GqGdQ
I really forgot about these nutbags.
But while they are a sure frindge extremists they are far from beeing a risk of overthrowing the gouvernment.
I love how every time someone says “company X shouldn’t do this” someone else replies and says “actually, company X is legally aloud to do that“.
Yeah.. we know. Nobody is arguing that they can’t do it. Only that they shouldn’t.
It’s a fun straw man though
Yeah.. we know. Nobody is arguing that they can’t do it. Only that they shouldn’t.
It’s a fun straw man though
This accounts for like 15% of all comments on political threads here.
> Anyone is free to set up a computer in their basement, install a web server, open up port 80 to the world, and serve to the world whatever blog or forum they want.
The internet as it exists for many people all over the world does not always include control over ports, or even a static IP address. Even if you do have a static IP you'll still need to go through a company to register a domain.
And as far as I know there's nothing stopping an ISP from refusing service, which could be coordinated just like this app store removal.
The internet as it exists for many people all over the world does not always include control over ports, or even a static IP address. Even if you do have a static IP you'll still need to go through a company to register a domain.
And as far as I know there's nothing stopping an ISP from refusing service, which could be coordinated just like this app store removal.
I mean I guess they could grow their own food too, but at what point does denying services to people with legal, but differing political preferences become wrong?
If Amazon said they wouldn't tolerate anyone who supported BLM because of the numerous riots and deaths caused by the movement would we this be okay? It's worth remembering that 50 years ago Amazon would probably morally object to hosting people who were pro-LGBT too.
The point of free speech is to protect those with unpopular opinions. This is because the default human response has always been to do the opposite. For years the science and arts were suppressed by people who just thought they were doing the right thing. As a civilization we have learnt from this mistake. Companies with global monopoly should not be empowered or encouraged to repeat it.
If Amazon said they wouldn't tolerate anyone who supported BLM because of the numerous riots and deaths caused by the movement would we this be okay? It's worth remembering that 50 years ago Amazon would probably morally object to hosting people who were pro-LGBT too.
The point of free speech is to protect those with unpopular opinions. This is because the default human response has always been to do the opposite. For years the science and arts were suppressed by people who just thought they were doing the right thing. As a civilization we have learnt from this mistake. Companies with global monopoly should not be empowered or encouraged to repeat it.
“people can simply drive, i fully support american airlines not letting group X use their airlines”
“people can just send letters i fully support att not allowing group X to use their phone lines to spread info.”
“people can just send letters i fully support att not allowing group X to use their phone lines to spread info.”
This is not the gotcha you think it is. Multiple airlines, for example, have banned passengers from their flights for refusing to wear masks. They are well within their rights to do so.
so you’d support them say banning anyone who supports bernie sanders? that’s also a physical threat, not a political idea. so don’t get your point
That's a pretty silly false equivalence. Supporting Bernie Sanders poses no harm to anyone. Refusing to wear a mask on a plane does. So does planning a terrorist attack.
You're talking about services that are "common carriers".
They have special legal obligations to, within reason, facilitate every legal transaction that comes their way. The scenarios you describe therefore cannot happen with them.
If you want internet platforms to have that same level of "anything goes", then you're arguing for them to be classified as common carriers.
They have special legal obligations to, within reason, facilitate every legal transaction that comes their way. The scenarios you describe therefore cannot happen with them.
If you want internet platforms to have that same level of "anything goes", then you're arguing for them to be classified as common carriers.
There is such a movement to regulate social giants (and other parts of Internet infrastructure) as common carriers. Apologies if you already knew this and I misunderstood your tone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utili...
I figured I wasn't the first one to think of the idea :)
I'm not sure how I feel about it though. A "commons" physical space has has an firm upper limit on how many people it can reach.
I don't think anyone is entitled to the massive amplification of their words that a large social media platform can provide without recourse to either being moderated or curated the way other broadcast media is done. A person could not perform some analog to "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" on those traditional media forms, and I don't see how doing it on the internet should change that.
The problem as always is where do you draw the line? Some free speech advocates seem to say it's too difficult so we shouldn't try. That one reasonable step could be the justification for an unreasonable one. I think that's a complete cop out. I think you do the reasonable thing, and then fight against the unreasonable thing. Not give up because it's not easy. It's a hard thing and we need to constantly as a whole and in individual circumstances assess our judgements, but not back away from making them.
I'm not sure how I feel about it though. A "commons" physical space has has an firm upper limit on how many people it can reach.
I don't think anyone is entitled to the massive amplification of their words that a large social media platform can provide without recourse to either being moderated or curated the way other broadcast media is done. A person could not perform some analog to "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" on those traditional media forms, and I don't see how doing it on the internet should change that.
The problem as always is where do you draw the line? Some free speech advocates seem to say it's too difficult so we shouldn't try. That one reasonable step could be the justification for an unreasonable one. I think that's a complete cop out. I think you do the reasonable thing, and then fight against the unreasonable thing. Not give up because it's not easy. It's a hard thing and we need to constantly as a whole and in individual circumstances assess our judgements, but not back away from making them.
Absurd. That will scale in no way whatsoever and you know it.
Why not? Half of leftist twitter has their own ASN, is peering with each other, and running kubernetes clusters in racks in their living room. (often because mainstream platforms wouldn't host their content either).
That setup works just fine, often to serve significantly higher amounts of traffic than you could afford at any regular hoster, too.
Look at the anarchist network setup at chaos camps, serving 100Gbps+ in the middle of rural nowhere, from server racks set up in chemical toilets, powered by geenerators and solar panels.
That setup works just fine, often to serve significantly higher amounts of traffic than you could afford at any regular hoster, too.
Look at the anarchist network setup at chaos camps, serving 100Gbps+ in the middle of rural nowhere, from server racks set up in chemical toilets, powered by geenerators and solar panels.
Not only does Parler have the option to set up their own infra like the old-school days of the web, they even have the option of promoting their speech via modern mobile only apps.
It’s not impossible to have the entirety of their community communicate solely via Signal, WhatsApp or iMessage. Or any theoretically equivalent end-to-end encrypted messaging app where the “message group” is the entirety of the current Parler community.
Apple, FB or anyone else, have no way to separate those users from others.
Of course, one could argue that Apple & Google could institute new policies to prevent the spread of misinformation on apps. But nobody can argue that it is a definitively more difficult problem to solve than on a user-content based, server-driven social network such as Twitter.
WhatsApp has implemented feature such as limited forwarding to combat misinformation.
But still they haven’t (and technically cannot) prevent Parler users from expressing their views.
In other words, I don’t see any instance of Parler users losing their right to free speech anywhere. Sure, they don’t enjoy the luxury of _convenience_ driven speech. But depending on how you define it, none of us have universally convenient means to express our speech.
It’s not impossible to have the entirety of their community communicate solely via Signal, WhatsApp or iMessage. Or any theoretically equivalent end-to-end encrypted messaging app where the “message group” is the entirety of the current Parler community.
Apple, FB or anyone else, have no way to separate those users from others.
Of course, one could argue that Apple & Google could institute new policies to prevent the spread of misinformation on apps. But nobody can argue that it is a definitively more difficult problem to solve than on a user-content based, server-driven social network such as Twitter.
WhatsApp has implemented feature such as limited forwarding to combat misinformation.
But still they haven’t (and technically cannot) prevent Parler users from expressing their views.
In other words, I don’t see any instance of Parler users losing their right to free speech anywhere. Sure, they don’t enjoy the luxury of _convenience_ driven speech. But depending on how you define it, none of us have universally convenient means to express our speech.
It isn't censorship. No one is telling Parler they're not free to do what they want. AWS is telling Parler they don't want them as a customer. That is not censorship. Whether a business should be able to refuse a customer is an interesting question. People on the political right have historically believed they should (refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple is often cited as a case of such freedom).
There is also an argument that AWS is now so big and important that they should be treated like a utility, and then refusing customers is something that they shouldn't necessarily be allowed to do. I'm not sure how I feel about that argument though.
There is also an argument that AWS is now so big and important that they should be treated like a utility, and then refusing customers is something that they shouldn't necessarily be allowed to do. I'm not sure how I feel about that argument though.
The day big tech companies learned that democrats would chair all the congressional committees that oversee them, these kinds of actions started happening. If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what to tell you.
It's also the day there was an insurrection/invasion of the capitol to prevent the Democratic process. This was fueled by the unfettered calls to violence on Parler.
If you're going to pick the events of the day, it's best to mention both.
If you're going to pick the events of the day, it's best to mention both.
To elevate that mob of miscreants and their raid to an insurrection or invasion will only give them more legitimacy and notoriety. They are criminals, period, who never had a chance to cause fundamental damage to the function of government (by their own actions, anyway). Don’t give them more power.
After a summer of riots, looting, and violence all across the country, fueled by calls to violence on Twitter and Facebook
None what happened over the summer violently broke into the second most important building in our country and disrupted one of the most important processes fundamental to our democracy, destroying the US's record for peaceful transfer of power.
If you don't see a qualitative difference between that and the few rioters over the summer, then I don't think there's really room for discussion here.
If you don't see a qualitative difference between that and the few rioters over the summer, then I don't think there's really room for discussion here.
That's such an arbitrary line to draw, and a convenient one at that. I guess "Some rioters are more equal than others".
Not an arbitrary line. You seem to think I wouldn't support criminal charges for the rioters over the summer. I do. I think they should all be prosecuted for any crimes committed.
But there are lines to be drawn, and It's certainly not an arbitrary line when it's drawn between the severity of crimes & their impact on society & the foundation of our government.
Are you telling me you don't see a difference between rioters that disrupt the peaceful transfer of power between Presidents? Between the a rioters that burned down a Wendy's compared to rioters that planned to assassinate the Vice President?
Sure, prosecute everyone who breaks the law, destroys property, etc. But I have no idea how you can say there is not a significant difference, a clear line to be drawn, between the impact of the Capitol rioters and those over the Summer.
It's the equivalent of you saying that a thief breaking into the house next door is no different than a thief breaking into the second most important building in the country. The later has a much larger implication for society, undermines society at a deeper level.
But there are lines to be drawn, and It's certainly not an arbitrary line when it's drawn between the severity of crimes & their impact on society & the foundation of our government.
Are you telling me you don't see a difference between rioters that disrupt the peaceful transfer of power between Presidents? Between the a rioters that burned down a Wendy's compared to rioters that planned to assassinate the Vice President?
Sure, prosecute everyone who breaks the law, destroys property, etc. But I have no idea how you can say there is not a significant difference, a clear line to be drawn, between the impact of the Capitol rioters and those over the Summer.
It's the equivalent of you saying that a thief breaking into the house next door is no different than a thief breaking into the second most important building in the country. The later has a much larger implication for society, undermines society at a deeper level.
Which were moderated, or at least attempted to be moderated, by Twitter and Facebook.
Parler openly allowed the planning of this violent anti-democratic insurrection and has been deemed bad faith in their moderation.
Parler openly allowed the planning of this violent anti-democratic insurrection and has been deemed bad faith in their moderation.
Genuinely curious if you can source that in any substantial way?
Would also be curios if Facebook or Twitter was used in any way to plan or facilitate communication leading up to the event.
Would also be curios if Facebook or Twitter was used in any way to plan or facilitate communication leading up to the event.
Facebook and Twitter provide accountable moderation. Parler doesn't and instead claims to assign moderation to random unaccountable users instead. This is according to their CEOs own interview earlier this week.
You can look at www.reddit.com/r/parlerwatch to see examples of extremism on Parler.
You can look at www.reddit.com/r/parlerwatch to see examples of extremism on Parler.
Thanks I’ll read in to it.
Doesn’t 230 protect websites from moderation because it would be completely untenable?
Some of the most extreme speech I’ve seen have been on Facebook and Twitter. However I don’t hold them responsible since they’re providing communication infrastructure.
Doesn’t 230 protect websites from moderation because it would be completely untenable?
Some of the most extreme speech I’ve seen have been on Facebook and Twitter. However I don’t hold them responsible since they’re providing communication infrastructure.
I'd have to read up on the exact extents of 230, but it's largely related to lawsuits and does not preclude platform TOS from holding things to a higher code of conduct.
Additionally I believe that 230 doesn't apply to knowledgeable hosting of illegal content. So if inciting violence is a known element on a site, and the owners are aware, then I believe (not a lawyer) that they can't hide behind 230.
Also I do not believe 230 prevents lawsuits against hosting services necessarily. It may make tech companies liable for providing a platform to a service that is behind 230 but they themselves can't claim that.
With regards to Facebook and Twitter, they have significantly larger user bases and active moderation. So definitely not perfect but they can remove content that violates all the ToS they may be beholden to. Parler does not provide such a thing, and doubles down on not doing so. So a lot of content gets removed from FB/Twitter, and if stuff doesn't due to slipping through the cracks, they still abide when notified of transgressions.
Additionally, as noted elsewhere, parler does moderate by removing content that the community dissaproves of, but that is legally in the clear, white leaving up what is largely considered discussion of illegal activity. Therefore they are tacit in those conspiring events.
Additionally I believe that 230 doesn't apply to knowledgeable hosting of illegal content. So if inciting violence is a known element on a site, and the owners are aware, then I believe (not a lawyer) that they can't hide behind 230.
Also I do not believe 230 prevents lawsuits against hosting services necessarily. It may make tech companies liable for providing a platform to a service that is behind 230 but they themselves can't claim that.
With regards to Facebook and Twitter, they have significantly larger user bases and active moderation. So definitely not perfect but they can remove content that violates all the ToS they may be beholden to. Parler does not provide such a thing, and doubles down on not doing so. So a lot of content gets removed from FB/Twitter, and if stuff doesn't due to slipping through the cracks, they still abide when notified of transgressions.
Additionally, as noted elsewhere, parler does moderate by removing content that the community dissaproves of, but that is legally in the clear, white leaving up what is largely considered discussion of illegal activity. Therefore they are tacit in those conspiring events.
What calls for violence, that weren't moderated?
What organized looting?
What riots that weren't instigated by police brutality?
Did any of these try and overthrow the Democratic process?
Please provide examples or you're just providing false equivalencies and whataboutism.
Please provide examples or you're just providing false equivalencies and whataboutism.
Politicians, including the incoming VP, did encourage and even bailed out the rioters, and did nothing to curb the violence directed at innocent civilians.
Let me be clear, even if you believe police brutality is a real problem, there can be no justification for the torching of homes and livelihoods done last summer.
Escalating to violence at the capitol was wrong, but I have little sympathy for the politicians that did not use their influence to curb that massive harm done communities across the country by the riots.
Let me be clear, even if you believe police brutality is a real problem, there can be no justification for the torching of homes and livelihoods done last summer.
Escalating to violence at the capitol was wrong, but I have little sympathy for the politicians that did not use their influence to curb that massive harm done communities across the country by the riots.
The rioters that were bailed out, were they involved in said looting and violence? What were they guilty of? Do you have links to people who took part in criminal activities that were bailed out by the VP or other politicians?
Did the VP encourage and incite violence?
Did the VP encourage and incite violence?
https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/31/meet-the-rioting-crimin...
This information is not hard to find.
This information is not hard to find.
[deleted]
Two of the three listed people are for crimes unrelated to the protest.
The only one related to the protest has no body cam footage made available. It's currently an allegation and should be treated as such, especially given the protests revolve around police brutality and several events of police fabricating events (Breonna Taylor).
Regardless, you claim the VP encouraged rioters. Did she encourage them to commit violence? Did she or any of her close affiliates say to hang other members of government? Did they say there should be trial by combat?
This is a clear shifting of goalposts and false equivalencies between a (then senator) donating to a charity and a current president and his affiliates fomenting violence.
Did Kamala tell the rioters that they're special and she loves them after they stormed a government building with pipe bombs and zip ties?
The only one related to the protest has no body cam footage made available. It's currently an allegation and should be treated as such, especially given the protests revolve around police brutality and several events of police fabricating events (Breonna Taylor).
Regardless, you claim the VP encouraged rioters. Did she encourage them to commit violence? Did she or any of her close affiliates say to hang other members of government? Did they say there should be trial by combat?
This is a clear shifting of goalposts and false equivalencies between a (then senator) donating to a charity and a current president and his affiliates fomenting violence.
Did Kamala tell the rioters that they're special and she loves them after they stormed a government building with pipe bombs and zip ties?
> Regardless, you claim the VP encouraged rioters. Did she encourage them to commit violence? Did she or any of her close affiliates say to hang other members of government? Did they say there should be trial by combat?
She said the protests would not let up, and to "beware". It was not an explicit call for violence, but often politicians tread the line and this case was no different. You may say that she did not actually call for violence, and condemned the violence afterward. So did Trump.
> Did Kamala tell the rioters that they're special and she loves them after they stormed a government building with pipe bombs and zip ties?
He said that in a message for them to go home. Do you think that maybe telling people who are motivated to extreme actions (including violence) might be calmed by being told that they are loved? I think it might have that effect.
She said the protests would not let up, and to "beware". It was not an explicit call for violence, but often politicians tread the line and this case was no different. You may say that she did not actually call for violence, and condemned the violence afterward. So did Trump.
> Did Kamala tell the rioters that they're special and she loves them after they stormed a government building with pipe bombs and zip ties?
He said that in a message for them to go home. Do you think that maybe telling people who are motivated to extreme actions (including violence) might be calmed by being told that they are loved? I think it might have that effect.
You're taking Kamala's comments out of context. She has, even at the time, disavowed rioting and looting, but encouraged peaceful protest. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/01/fac...
With regards to Trump, you may consider his words as a way to quell the crowd, but only if you view them in isolation. He provided no condemnation of the act, most of his statement centered around reiterating his unproven conspiracy that caused the mob. He withheld support from the national guard as well.
To compare the two is highly disingenuous.
With regards to Trump, you may consider his words as a way to quell the crowd, but only if you view them in isolation. He provided no condemnation of the act, most of his statement centered around reiterating his unproven conspiracy that caused the mob. He withheld support from the national guard as well.
To compare the two is highly disingenuous.
So you decided to go with the both sides argument?
Which side had the president of the United States actively inciting riots?
Which side had the president of the United States actively inciting riots?
Neither Biden nor Trump actively incited riots. Though both were wishy washy about their respective riots, generally supporting "protestors" and giving generic statements disavowing violence.
diveanon(1)
there is only one side with a president. If you had asked differently, you couldnt be so biased anymore because many many democrat politicians were quite explicitly encouraging more riots and even harassment of politicians. While police stations were burned down. Meanwhile a bunch of Trump supporters casually walked into the senate laughing and smiling and giving thumbs up to the camera. If you cant see which one is worse, nobody can help you
Are you fucking kidding me?
They were chanting "Hang Pence", they had guns, they killed a police officer, they setup a fucking gallows. They were seeking hostages and a few guards and chair barricade were the only thing preventing them from stopping the certification process for the the first time in our countries history.
Are you really this disconnected from what is actually happening right now or do you have you head so far up your ass that you can't see the difference between civil rights protests and an armed coup at the capitol of the United States?
They were chanting "Hang Pence", they had guns, they killed a police officer, they setup a fucking gallows. They were seeking hostages and a few guards and chair barricade were the only thing preventing them from stopping the certification process for the the first time in our countries history.
Are you really this disconnected from what is actually happening right now or do you have you head so far up your ass that you can't see the difference between civil rights protests and an armed coup at the capitol of the United States?
I'm a LOT more concerned about the rise in hateful, violent rhetoric being bandied about by self-described 'patriots' who seem hell-bent on bulldozing their way into political power as soon at it became obvious that they could not win by legal means.
These people stormed the legislature of the US to attempt to install their cult leader as dictator. If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what to tell you.
And Parler will find another web host. If the daily stormer can find one, these clowns will. They're not disappearing.
These people stormed the legislature of the US to attempt to install their cult leader as dictator. If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what to tell you.
And Parler will find another web host. If the daily stormer can find one, these clowns will. They're not disappearing.
Of course it's concerning, but it's also concerning how quick people are to dehumanize and call for censorship, putting a lot of energy into discussing endlessly just how evil or stupid or unreachable those other people are, rather than root causes [0]. The mainstream is whipping itself into hysteria just as much as QAnon does, and it really does seem like circus all around. Just for some perspective:
> The capitol has been the site of multiple bombings, shootings, assassination attempts, and stormings for centuries. Pretending its an unbespoiled sacred Church which has never been penetrated so vulgarly is just ahistorical.
-- https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/kt0xpm/in_1954_4...
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiCeqySVhCE&t=20m55s
edit: clicking a button doesn't constitute an argument. You can only ignore Chomsky, neither tie his shoelaces or address his points. Shame on you.
> The capitol has been the site of multiple bombings, shootings, assassination attempts, and stormings for centuries. Pretending its an unbespoiled sacred Church which has never been penetrated so vulgarly is just ahistorical.
-- https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/kt0xpm/in_1954_4...
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiCeqySVhCE&t=20m55s
edit: clicking a button doesn't constitute an argument. You can only ignore Chomsky, neither tie his shoelaces or address his points. Shame on you.
This is also because learning to live with each other is harder than just denouncing the other side. We need to help people understand that the root cause needs to be examined as you said.
This looking for the root cause usually works well in big companies - for example on the Toyota production line but in politics people tend to look for easy answers. Examples like the war on drugs, getting overly tough on crime or defunding the police altogether do nothing but exacerbate the underlying issues.
Apart from calling this out and trying to vote in people who can think deeper I'm not sure what else to do. Living in close nit community/larger families you need to learn accept people for who they are and that seems to be going out the window with the increased focus on the individual in modern western culture. There's no one size fix all unfortunately...
This looking for the root cause usually works well in big companies - for example on the Toyota production line but in politics people tend to look for easy answers. Examples like the war on drugs, getting overly tough on crime or defunding the police altogether do nothing but exacerbate the underlying issues.
Apart from calling this out and trying to vote in people who can think deeper I'm not sure what else to do. Living in close nit community/larger families you need to learn accept people for who they are and that seems to be going out the window with the increased focus on the individual in modern western culture. There's no one size fix all unfortunately...
I’m equally concerned about the rise in left wing propaganda. Including extreme double speak and obvious gas lighting. Censorship and manipulation. Very clear online manipulation by bots and paid trolls. Extreme bias in news.
America has become a country of absolutely insane extremists in a relatively short time.
There doesn’t seem to be anyone willing to try to get things back on track. As an outsider looking in it feels like everyone’s IQ has dropped below room temperature.
America has become a country of absolutely insane extremists in a relatively short time.
There doesn’t seem to be anyone willing to try to get things back on track. As an outsider looking in it feels like everyone’s IQ has dropped below room temperature.
It's amazing to see this downvoted within a minute of you posting it, probably by someone not even aware they are only underlining your point.
No, they are being downvoted because "don't storm the Capital chanting about hanging the vice president", and "don't use allegations of voter fraud as an excuse to violently oppose the installation of a duly elected government" are probably not Extremist Left Wing Propaganda.
You know I didn’t say that. And your response is exactly what I’m talking about.
You’re operating on stress, fear, and propaganda my friend. Find the truth, and bring your IQ back up.
You’re operating on stress, fear, and propaganda my friend. Find the truth, and bring your IQ back up.
It concerns literally everyone that large tech companies are opportunistic and only start taking violent threats seriously the moment the bully in chief is out of office, but you have it the wrong way around.
This type of content should have never been tolerated to begin with, the only reason they're only starting to do something is because they don't fear political retribution any more.
This type of content should have never been tolerated to begin with, the only reason they're only starting to do something is because they don't fear political retribution any more.
It is entirely telling what they could get away with under Republicans.
It doesn't concern me at all. It didn't concern me in 2016 when all these companies helped Trump and his campaign, and when none of them banned him despite repeated violations of their T&Cs. Now that it serves the companies to act they're all starting to act. Companies are largely bipartisan. They do what they need to do to stay in business and maximize their profit. That means playing politics and shifting from one side to the other when the wind changes.
The time to be concerned would be if these companies choose politics over profits.
The time to be concerned would be if these companies choose politics over profits.
AWS is nowhere near big enough to be treated as utility, there are heaps of alternatives, big cloud providers (Azure, GCP, Oracle), hundreds of smaller cloud hosts, then there is self-hosting. What should be treated as utility is tier 1 networks, and I haven't heard about Level 3 or AT&T refusing to carry someones traffic.
I'm tired of it being "[website] is censoring Y", when in reality it's "[website] is not giving free megaphone to Y". Posting on these websites is a service they provide, it's a platform allow you to use, and they have zero obligation to give it to you.
When you are the main defacto means of deploying web platforms it essentially does amount to cencorship. The irony of the comparison to twitter is that parlor IS trying to be a twitter competitor thus preventing twitter from falling into the same classification of being too big to be non competitive
Except that's not true. Just because they have around 50% (a bit less actually) doesn't mean there aren't hundreds of other options. Hell, you can literally host a website from your own computer from your own house.
If it was an ISP blocking, where more Americans have access to 1 or 2, then you'd have an argument, because it's also near impossible for people to spin off their own personal ISP. But there are hundreds if not thousand of hosting platforms online, and you can spin up your own pretty easily.
If it was an ISP blocking, where more Americans have access to 1 or 2, then you'd have an argument, because it's also near impossible for people to spin off their own personal ISP. But there are hundreds if not thousand of hosting platforms online, and you can spin up your own pretty easily.
[deleted]
> I mean, even if you disagree with the idea of Parler, how can one willingly support this kind of censorship?
The events of Wednesday of last week changed my mind.
> "First they came for the XYZ and I didn't care because I wans't XYZ, then they came for the ..., and then they came for me, and there was no one left to stop them from getting me"
First Wikipedia banned Church of Scientology, and no one really cared.
Then 4chan booted Gamergate, and no one really cared.
Then Cloudflare booted Daily Stormer, and no one really cared.
Then AWS / Apple / Google booted Parlor. And you know? Its not really nearly as bad as you think. We have real life examples. You don't have to talk about hypotheticals, choose a real life example.
Like, do you really think Parlor deserves a platform if the community is continuing to plot assassination attempts vs Mike Pence and attacks on the Inauguration over the next two weeks?
Instead of arguing in the abstract, how about you argue with what's going on this week.
The events of Wednesday of last week changed my mind.
> "First they came for the XYZ and I didn't care because I wans't XYZ, then they came for the ..., and then they came for me, and there was no one left to stop them from getting me"
First Wikipedia banned Church of Scientology, and no one really cared.
Then 4chan booted Gamergate, and no one really cared.
Then Cloudflare booted Daily Stormer, and no one really cared.
Then AWS / Apple / Google booted Parlor. And you know? Its not really nearly as bad as you think. We have real life examples. You don't have to talk about hypotheticals, choose a real life example.
Like, do you really think Parlor deserves a platform if the community is continuing to plot assassination attempts vs Mike Pence and attacks on the Inauguration over the next two weeks?
Instead of arguing in the abstract, how about you argue with what's going on this week.
> The events of Wednesday of last week changed my mind.
Changed your mind to support what exactly? That’s a little to abstract to even argue. Let’s talk specifics.
What did you think companies shouldn’t be doing that they now should? What epiphany did you have on Wednesday?
Is it just that Parler itself is evil and must be stopped? Why not advocate for full DNS removal as well? Advocate for their bank accounts to be closed as well.
Everyone keeps saying this is the obvious correct move, but this seems like a ham-fisted 9/11-type response where the cure is going to be much worse than the poison in the long term.
Changed your mind to support what exactly? That’s a little to abstract to even argue. Let’s talk specifics.
What did you think companies shouldn’t be doing that they now should? What epiphany did you have on Wednesday?
Is it just that Parler itself is evil and must be stopped? Why not advocate for full DNS removal as well? Advocate for their bank accounts to be closed as well.
Everyone keeps saying this is the obvious correct move, but this seems like a ham-fisted 9/11-type response where the cure is going to be much worse than the poison in the long term.
Yes, I do. That's like saying you want to ban phones because people use them to plot terrorist attacks.
Your comment is unhelpful, abstracct, and too hyperbolic for the purposes of this discussion.
Stick with reality. I dare you to defend Parlor. Or, if you don't like Parlor, we have a myriad of other deplatformings (Gamergate/4Chan, Church of Scientology/Wikipedia, and Daily Stormer / Cloudflare) you can discuss instead.
IMO, you want to run away to an imaginary world where the events of last Wednesday do not matter. Some pretend argument where people are taking away all cell phones (or something similarly unrealistic...). I'm not going to let you. At a bare minimum, you need to choose a realistic example from reality before I can take you seriously.
Lets be real, lets stay real. Lets use actual, reality-based arguments and discussions.
Stick with reality. I dare you to defend Parlor. Or, if you don't like Parlor, we have a myriad of other deplatformings (Gamergate/4Chan, Church of Scientology/Wikipedia, and Daily Stormer / Cloudflare) you can discuss instead.
IMO, you want to run away to an imaginary world where the events of last Wednesday do not matter. Some pretend argument where people are taking away all cell phones (or something similarly unrealistic...). I'm not going to let you. At a bare minimum, you need to choose a realistic example from reality before I can take you seriously.
Lets be real, lets stay real. Lets use actual, reality-based arguments and discussions.
How do you delineate between Parlor planning this and ISIS using telegram for recruiting and planning? In both cases, the platforms did nothing to prevent, but in the telegram case the consequences were much more severe—evidence of mass casualty events due to telegram planning.
To me, this is why it feels political: these tech companies are responding more strongly to this than well-organized terror organizations that were active for years.
To me, this is why it feels political: these tech companies are responding more strongly to this than well-organized terror organizations that were active for years.
Your history of events seems... strange.
https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/europol-and-tele...
It seems like to me, that Telegram is cooperating with police services to delist propaganda.
-------
If anything, you seem to be proving my point? Telegram is closely working with European officials to remove ISIS propaganda today.
> Over the past year and a half, Europol has been collaborating with Telegram in tackling terrorism online. Building upon a previous Referral Action Days with Telegram in October 2018, the event this year was an opportunity for both parties to review the kind of content that terrorist groups attempt to disseminate online and further improve the referral process with the common aim of ensuring that material glorifying terrorism would be removed from internet as soon as possible.
...
> Telegram is no place for violence, criminal activity and abusers. The company has put forth considerable effort to root out the abusers of the platform by both bolstering its technical capacity in countering malicious content and establishing close partnerships with international organisations such as Europol.
The above post is dated 2019, which means they were in close collaboration from 2017. In 2015, Telegram immediately purged ISIS content in response to the attacks on France.
-------
I'm very confused by your post. Could you elaborate on your version of history? Or maybe what you're trying to say? As far as I can tell, your Telegram example only supports the Parlor deplatforming. When extremist attacks occur, our only option is to silence the attackers.
https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/europol-and-tele...
It seems like to me, that Telegram is cooperating with police services to delist propaganda.
-------
If anything, you seem to be proving my point? Telegram is closely working with European officials to remove ISIS propaganda today.
> Over the past year and a half, Europol has been collaborating with Telegram in tackling terrorism online. Building upon a previous Referral Action Days with Telegram in October 2018, the event this year was an opportunity for both parties to review the kind of content that terrorist groups attempt to disseminate online and further improve the referral process with the common aim of ensuring that material glorifying terrorism would be removed from internet as soon as possible.
...
> Telegram is no place for violence, criminal activity and abusers. The company has put forth considerable effort to root out the abusers of the platform by both bolstering its technical capacity in countering malicious content and establishing close partnerships with international organisations such as Europol.
The above post is dated 2019, which means they were in close collaboration from 2017. In 2015, Telegram immediately purged ISIS content in response to the attacks on France.
-------
I'm very confused by your post. Could you elaborate on your version of history? Or maybe what you're trying to say? As far as I can tell, your Telegram example only supports the Parlor deplatforming. When extremist attacks occur, our only option is to silence the attackers.
In 2015, telegram started removing posts after the attack in Paris—but they’d linked attacks as early as 2014 back to telegram communications and recruiting. Even in 2015, attempts were half-hearted until a high profile expose (Vox) and Others like it ran.
There were never any calls for deplatforming telegram in this manner as far as I know; it would be like giving Parlor another 3-5 years to clean itself up.
I agree that the attackers need to be silenced, but this move by apple and google is unprecedented and unnecessary; if they are inciting violence, it should be dealt with legally, not via corporate ethics panels. Platforms should be responsible for content like what parlor presents, but apple shouldn’t be the who holds them accountable. This isn’t the cake shop declining to serve a gay customer, but rather the phone company pulling the plug.
There were never any calls for deplatforming telegram in this manner as far as I know; it would be like giving Parlor another 3-5 years to clean itself up.
I agree that the attackers need to be silenced, but this move by apple and google is unprecedented and unnecessary; if they are inciting violence, it should be dealt with legally, not via corporate ethics panels. Platforms should be responsible for content like what parlor presents, but apple shouldn’t be the who holds them accountable. This isn’t the cake shop declining to serve a gay customer, but rather the phone company pulling the plug.
After the Paris attack in 2015, it seems like Telegram immediately started working with authorities.
In contrast, Parlor double-downed on its behavior. It immediately became clear that Parlor admins were NOT working on clamping down the violent extremism that's occurring currently on its site.
In contrast, Parlor double-downed on its behavior. It immediately became clear that Parlor admins were NOT working on clamping down the violent extremism that's occurring currently on its site.
You're commenting is very uncivil and doesn't belong here.
I completely disagree. It's a well-formed argument, and he's calling out someone for making a lazy argument.
What's lazy about my argument?
I purposefully stayed away from the "Lazy" word, since I do think that starts to lean towards unhelpful (and if I'm claiming you're unhelpful, then the very least I should do is be helpful myself).
I purposefully used three words to describe your argument: unhelpful, abstract, and too hyperbolic. Which hopefully provides you enough room to move forward with the discussion.
-------
I wouldn't sweat it. I don't think your argument is "lazy". If anything, you're posting in too many threads simultaneously.
If I were in your boat, I'd start cutting out the threads which are least helpful, and start focusing on the discussion threads which are most promising.
Not all discussions are fruitful. If you have fewer discussions, you'll find that you'll naturally result in higher-quality discussions. You shouldn't feel the need to respond to everyone.
I purposefully used three words to describe your argument: unhelpful, abstract, and too hyperbolic. Which hopefully provides you enough room to move forward with the discussion.
-------
I wouldn't sweat it. I don't think your argument is "lazy". If anything, you're posting in too many threads simultaneously.
If I were in your boat, I'd start cutting out the threads which are least helpful, and start focusing on the discussion threads which are most promising.
Not all discussions are fruitful. If you have fewer discussions, you'll find that you'll naturally result in higher-quality discussions. You shouldn't feel the need to respond to everyone.
I strongly disagree. The parent comment is making a well-reasoned rebuttal against an overly vague/hyperbolic argument ("they'll ban all cell phones next").
IMO it was perfectly reasonable. He was attacking the argument, not the user.
Attacking the user:
"IMO, you want to run away to an imaginary world where the events of last Wednesday do not matter"
Agressive tone towards OP: "I'm not going to let you"
They also edited the comment slightly from what you see now.
Agressive tone towards OP: "I'm not going to let you"
They also edited the comment slightly from what you see now.
Does anyone else see the irony in this or is it just me?
I am defending Parlor. With a very concrete and relevant analogy.
Why don't you deplatform me from HN if you disagree.
EDIT: So according to you, for my argument to be relevant it has to have an actual precedent in reality? Did Nazi germany have one?
EDIT2: I'm not using nazi germany as an example, I'm pointing out that nazi germany did not have an actual precedent in reality, yet one could have warned about escalating events at the time and, faced with your argument, one would not have been able to provide precedent rooted in history to make one's case that things were going down a slippery slope. Yet, we all know what happened.
Why don't you deplatform me from HN if you disagree.
EDIT: So according to you, for my argument to be relevant it has to have an actual precedent in reality? Did Nazi germany have one?
EDIT2: I'm not using nazi germany as an example, I'm pointing out that nazi germany did not have an actual precedent in reality, yet one could have warned about escalating events at the time and, faced with your argument, one would not have been able to provide precedent rooted in history to make one's case that things were going down a slippery slope. Yet, we all know what happened.
> I am defending Parlor. With a very concrete and contextual analogy.
No one is trying to get rid of cell phones anywhere in the USA. It is neither concrete nor contextual.
This Parlor de-platforming is extremely similar to the Daily Stormer de-platforming from Cloudflare. That's an actual, reality-based example I feel acceptable about discussing. There are probably many other examples.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
This happened 4 years ago. There's a huge amount of historical discussion and arguments you can look up about this event 4 years ago if you like.
> EDIT: So according to you, for my argument to be relevant it has to have an actual precedent in reality? Did Nazi germany have one?
Yes. Nazi Germany counts as a historical example if you wish to use them. But since they had no internet back then, I think you'll find it difficult to find similarities to today. But give it a shot, what about the Nazis do you want to discuss?
If I'm thinking about the 1930s or 1940s, I'm thinking...
* The US Office of Censorship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship), which literally opened mail and censored them, as a historical example if you'd like. There's plenty of real-life examples of censorship from which you can base your argument and discussion off of.
* There's also Hay's Code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code), which is probably a good 1930s example of Free-Market American Censorship being applied to Hollywood (and now that I think of it, bears some level of resemblance to the Parlor vs AWS situation).
No one is trying to get rid of cell phones anywhere in the USA. It is neither concrete nor contextual.
This Parlor de-platforming is extremely similar to the Daily Stormer de-platforming from Cloudflare. That's an actual, reality-based example I feel acceptable about discussing. There are probably many other examples.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
This happened 4 years ago. There's a huge amount of historical discussion and arguments you can look up about this event 4 years ago if you like.
> EDIT: So according to you, for my argument to be relevant it has to have an actual precedent in reality? Did Nazi germany have one?
Yes. Nazi Germany counts as a historical example if you wish to use them. But since they had no internet back then, I think you'll find it difficult to find similarities to today. But give it a shot, what about the Nazis do you want to discuss?
If I'm thinking about the 1930s or 1940s, I'm thinking...
* The US Office of Censorship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship), which literally opened mail and censored them, as a historical example if you'd like. There's plenty of real-life examples of censorship from which you can base your argument and discussion off of.
* There's also Hay's Code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code), which is probably a good 1930s example of Free-Market American Censorship being applied to Hollywood (and now that I think of it, bears some level of resemblance to the Parlor vs AWS situation).
That’s very different from what’s happening.
Amazon, Google and Apple all warned Parler about their violations and asked them to moderate content, before booting them. And of course Parler didn’t do anything
Amazon, Google and Apple all warned Parler about their violations and asked them to moderate content, before booting them. And of course Parler didn’t do anything
The comparison still holds. Should Verizon be warned and held accountable for phone conversations?
Phone conversations aren't public broadcasts. Not saying you're wrong, but analogies involving one-on-one private telephone conversations don't apply to anything being discussed here.
If Xerizon was specifically created to host racism conversations etc, yeah they should be held accountable.
What if Verizon wasn't specifically created to host racist conversation but simply to have conversations, and that racist conversations just happened to be happening there (such is the reality of the situation, i'm sure people are having racist conversations on verizon phones).
Wouldn’t it be more like refusing to sell phones to known terrorists rather than a blanket ban of selling phones to anyone?
There are also many things we ban or regulate because people use them to kill.
We don't ban vehicles because they were used as a getaway car in an armed robbery, but we ban automatic weapons that are used in an armed robbery.
We don't ban vehicles because they were used as a getaway car in an armed robbery, but we ban automatic weapons that are used in an armed robbery.
Only if we were shutting down the entire internet.
This is hyperbolic thinking with no nuance. You can starve fascism and actively maintain that line.
[deleted]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.
Yeah I've seen people throwing that around for the last few years and obviously it's going really well.
You're being sarcastic because you're implying it isn't going well. It's true, the situation is not going well at all, but the consensus seems to be that it's mainly -because- Facebook and Twitter never banned these voices for a long time as they should have (and ostensibly they didn't ban mainly because of bottom line)
Do Amazon, Facebook, or Google get held accountable for what random users post on their platforms / services / servers? No.
Why are they holding Parler to a different standard?
Why are they holding Parler to a different standard?
It's because they see that they will be held accountable if they don't start policing themselves.
They should have started doing this 4 years ago, then maybe we wouldn't have witnessed the first coup attempt in our history and 350k people wouldn't have died from a preventable illness.
They should have started doing this 4 years ago, then maybe we wouldn't have witnessed the first coup attempt in our history and 350k people wouldn't have died from a preventable illness.
In Jan-Feb you had tinfoil hat if you were "fearmongering" about Covid. One month later the roles were switched. Mask went from offical "meaningless" to "mandatory" in like no time. Social media is not to blame for the confusion. The institutions are. "Fact checking" in Jan would have been no human to human transmission and no risk of spread out of China. Having free speech was important back then.
Concerning the Capitol I agree.
Concerning the Capitol I agree.
I am an American expat who has been living in Thailand since Trump was elected.
I can forgive uncertainty about covid until March, despite my part of the world taking it very seriously. After that point I think America as a whole, and the Trump administration in particular really shit the bed. We have been wearing masks here on a mandatory basis since February, and have arguably handled covid better than any nation besides New Zealand.
I can forgive uncertainty about covid until March, despite my part of the world taking it very seriously. After that point I think America as a whole, and the Trump administration in particular really shit the bed. We have been wearing masks here on a mandatory basis since February, and have arguably handled covid better than any nation besides New Zealand.
They are not being held to a different standards. The government isn’t forcing Parker to shut down; their business partners are merely boycotting them. People boycott Facebook/Amazon/Google all the time (users, customers, potential employees, advertisers, etc.) because they disagree with those companies’ business practices.
> consensus
Yeah it's shocking people wouldn't blame themselves.
Yeah it's shocking people wouldn't blame themselves.
I'm not sure it even means what people think it means. Quoting the page:
> I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
This seems like it's clearly saying that, as a society, we should reserve the right to silence any group by force if we consider them to be intolerant. It's often said that the government has a monopoly on force, so this is pretty much saying the government should reserve the right to quiet any speech it deems intolerant.
Is this really what the people quoting it want? I'm worried about the government using "intolerance" as a cover for suppressing speech it dislikes for other reasons. Some governments like manage to Germany ban certain types of speech without becoming authoritarian states, but others don't. Particularly in the US, I have a feeling we'll get Trump 2.0 at some point, and he'll be smarter and more capable and more charismatic and more populist and more popular, and I don't know if it's a good idea to give him the right to say "free speech is cancelled and if I think you're not being tolerant enough [to groups I like], you're going to jail bucko". Do people arguing on Popper's side have a reason to be confident that this won't ever happen?
> I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
This seems like it's clearly saying that, as a society, we should reserve the right to silence any group by force if we consider them to be intolerant. It's often said that the government has a monopoly on force, so this is pretty much saying the government should reserve the right to quiet any speech it deems intolerant.
Is this really what the people quoting it want? I'm worried about the government using "intolerance" as a cover for suppressing speech it dislikes for other reasons. Some governments like manage to Germany ban certain types of speech without becoming authoritarian states, but others don't. Particularly in the US, I have a feeling we'll get Trump 2.0 at some point, and he'll be smarter and more capable and more charismatic and more populist and more popular, and I don't know if it's a good idea to give him the right to say "free speech is cancelled and if I think you're not being tolerant enough [to groups I like], you're going to jail bucko". Do people arguing on Popper's side have a reason to be confident that this won't ever happen?
I will not tolerate your sarcasm... Out of tolerance.
Thanks for sharing, this is really interesting (not being sarcastic)
In a fit of irony, a comment I posted on a previous day referencing this paradox was removed as baiting and cliché. And I must say, I do support the removal of Parler, but here on HN having my thoughtful (at least to my perception) comment removed does serve as a chilling effect.
I don't see anything profound or deeply insightful about this. In order for the fish tank to be empty, it must try to remain empty of fish.
Replace tolerance with "free[dom]" and intolerance with "censorship" without losing its meaning and getting rid of the word play.
"In order for society to be free, it must censor censorship."
even simpler:
"In order for society to be free, it must be free from censorship."
Freedom and censorship are antonyms of each other (mutually exclusive). So obviously, its a paradox.
Replace tolerance with "free[dom]" and intolerance with "censorship" without losing its meaning and getting rid of the word play.
"In order for society to be free, it must censor censorship."
even simpler:
"In order for society to be free, it must be free from censorship."
Freedom and censorship are antonyms of each other (mutually exclusive). So obviously, its a paradox.
He does not imply that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
I think the word "intolerant" has become such a loaded term that phrasing it this way will simply invite people to twist the words around. They'll just take whatever position they're opposed to and declare it to be "intolerance" and therefore worthy of suppression.
Fish and Freedom are completely different concepts from tolerance. They're not as substitutable here as you think.
> In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.
Even as it is with the word - tolerance, it is not particularly insightful in any profound way to me. Can you explain? It just says that in order for the society to remain tolerant, it must get rid of intolerance. To which my brain goes "No shit!", would love to get more insight.
Even as it is with the word - tolerance, it is not particularly insightful in any profound way to me. Can you explain? It just says that in order for the society to remain tolerant, it must get rid of intolerance. To which my brain goes "No shit!", would love to get more insight.
> ... it must not censor censorship.
Doesn't this imply that censorship must be allowed for a free society?
Coming to the main point, I think the meaning behind the phrase is that absolute tolerance is not sustainable; a line must be drawn somewhere and yes, we can argue till end of time where that line needs to be drawn as long it is drawn somewhere.
Doesn't this imply that censorship must be allowed for a free society?
Coming to the main point, I think the meaning behind the phrase is that absolute tolerance is not sustainable; a line must be drawn somewhere and yes, we can argue till end of time where that line needs to be drawn as long it is drawn somewhere.
Thank you, I now see the central point "absolute tolerance is not sustainable". That reads far better than the original paradox.
Discussing the point itself: Yea it makes sense though and I had arguments with a liberatarian friend who wants 100% anarchy. No police, no laws, no anything, no FDA, no Fire department and no medical laws, no lawyers, etc. My argument was that such a society is impossible and would crumble upon itself. One bad actor and the entire society falls apart.
Discussing the point itself: Yea it makes sense though and I had arguments with a liberatarian friend who wants 100% anarchy. No police, no laws, no anything, no FDA, no Fire department and no medical laws, no lawyers, etc. My argument was that such a society is impossible and would crumble upon itself. One bad actor and the entire society falls apart.
This is not censorship, it is private companies deciding they no longer want a toxic customer.
Would you be happier if they banned gay wedding cakes too?
Would you be happier if they banned gay wedding cakes too?
Don't shoot unless if you can score. We aren't talking about a fringe belief here. A third of Americans believe that the election was rigged. 21% supported the storming of the Capitol. That's not something that you can just "cancel" by deleting an app. You're just handing them more ammunition.
We can refuse to tolerate many ideas spread on parlor without banning parlor.
>>the society must be intolerant of intolerance.
Yes but where to draw a line?
Yes but where to draw a line?
Invading and occupying the U.S. capitol with a fatal anti-democratic insurrection seems like a good place to start.
Given that the attempted assassination of congress members at a base/softball game was not a good place to start, I don't see how one could justify starting at the invasion of a federal building except in considering the teams involved.
Help me understand how a lone gunman at a softball game is the equivalent of a fatal anti-democratic insurrection invading and occupying the nations capitol.
Well for starters, realizing it isn't just a lone political assassin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
Second, if you look at only those with the intention to kill or gravely wound, the numbers are quite comparable.
Third, one of these is an attack on a much softer target and done without any warning, making it a more dangerous threat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
Second, if you look at only those with the intention to kill or gravely wound, the numbers are quite comparable.
Third, one of these is an attack on a much softer target and done without any warning, making it a more dangerous threat.
I don't get what you're trying to say. You think that platforms don't attempt to stop calls to assassination?
Because it seems like you're whatabouting presidential assassination attempts to do what exactly?
Because it seems like you're whatabouting presidential assassination attempts to do what exactly?
"Whatabouting" or "whataboutism" is just the negative name for pointing out inconsistent application of standards.
No one was up in arms when Twitter removed 125k Isis accounts. Deplatforming terrorists, and if you think there aren’t there then you willfully ignorant of what’s going on on that platform, is a legitimate action for any private citizen or company to undertake. This isn’t state censorship in any way.
Ignoring your TOS and not moderating terrorists is complicit action by the owners to get ahead of “but they aren’t all terrorists!”
Ignoring your TOS and not moderating terrorists is complicit action by the owners to get ahead of “but they aren’t all terrorists!”
Good point.
If ISIS made an App to communicate and organize, nobody will have a problem for it to be immediately removed.
If ISIS made an App to communicate and organize, nobody will have a problem for it to be immediately removed.
By the same logic used to bring down Parlor, Twitter itself should be shut down
There are threads on Parler right now (well, were before the service was taken down I guess) where people are discussing names and addresses of Twitter employees and planning kidnappings. You really think taking that down is censorship?
I wonder if these people also consider banning child porn censorship. Or removing ISIS recruitment videos. Where's the line? Should absolutely everything be allowed? Should someone recruiting people to attack the Capitol be allowed too? Or doxxing Twitter employees as you mention? Clearly a line exists somewhere as my first two examples, I'd hope most people would be okay with those being taken down, but somehow this line is not okay?
Thing is, if we give up on these people like this, we help radicalize them. This is a platform that was created specifically for people that were kicked out. If we keep taking their platform they will keep getting angrier.
If there is a solution to this, it involves empathy and honest engagement. Not banning and blocking, at least not of the rank and file people.
If there is a solution to this, it involves empathy and honest engagement. Not banning and blocking, at least not of the rank and file people.
This high minded woo woo bullshit is intended to be accepted as a “good faith” devil’s advocate argument, except it fails to address the following:
Watching these “patriots” trying to interrupt and attack the democratic process with such blatant, selfish contempt on live television was a breaking point/ wake up call for the majority of morally decent Americans.
The cultural zeitgeist has decided that a line has been crossed and therefore: a stand must be made, and action must be taken.
Because of the way time works, we simply cannot afford the luxury (privilege) of trying to “rehabilitate” these people _at the current moment_.
You don’t get any points for giving these people the benefit of the doubt and/or confusing what’s occurring right now as a “teachable moment”.
The fact that these people can guilt trip you into believing that they should be treated with empathy is 100% irrefutable proof that you, personally, have been conned.
I understand that these actions are obviously not 100% perfect and sustainable, but until we’ve reached a modicum of sensible tech regulation standards, I would take imperfect action over no action at all.
Watching these “patriots” trying to interrupt and attack the democratic process with such blatant, selfish contempt on live television was a breaking point/ wake up call for the majority of morally decent Americans.
The cultural zeitgeist has decided that a line has been crossed and therefore: a stand must be made, and action must be taken.
Because of the way time works, we simply cannot afford the luxury (privilege) of trying to “rehabilitate” these people _at the current moment_.
You don’t get any points for giving these people the benefit of the doubt and/or confusing what’s occurring right now as a “teachable moment”.
The fact that these people can guilt trip you into believing that they should be treated with empathy is 100% irrefutable proof that you, personally, have been conned.
I understand that these actions are obviously not 100% perfect and sustainable, but until we’ve reached a modicum of sensible tech regulation standards, I would take imperfect action over no action at all.
>Where's the line?
Harm.
When the expression of speech causes harm, then the line is drawn. This is the general interpretation ranging from SCOTUS to free speech philosophers like John Stuart Mill.
Harm.
When the expression of speech causes harm, then the line is drawn. This is the general interpretation ranging from SCOTUS to free speech philosophers like John Stuart Mill.
Nobody as far as I can tell was objecting to the removal of illegal content from their platforms.
I'm not familiar with Parler. I tried to read some comments from different posts and wasn't able. Do you have to have an account to read comments?
I support "this kind of censorship" because I'm not an extremist and don't like extremism, especially the violent kind. I hope even the ISPs get involved if that's what it takes to prevent an insurrection from any expression of extremism.
I may reconsider this position if they ever "come for me"; but frankly, for now, I value stability and longevity for our nation more than its abstract ideals about freedom of speech.
I may reconsider this position if they ever "come for me"; but frankly, for now, I value stability and longevity for our nation more than its abstract ideals about freedom of speech.
100%
They were literally threatening to kill Twitter employees and elected officials. How on Earth should anyone defend that as free speech.
They were literally threatening to kill Twitter employees and elected officials. How on Earth should anyone defend that as free speech.
A conservative viewpoint.. I feel I'm still a bit(just a tad) more risk tolerant than this, but I do empathize with this viewpoint.
Basically; call me when there is a real problem, 'cause this ain't it.
Basically; call me when there is a real problem, 'cause this ain't it.
Upvote for this. Sometimes, we have to put away our abstract ideals and concede that, although there may not be a "bright line" at which censorship becomes acceptable, the incitement this week crossed it nonetheless.
> I may reconsider this position if they ever "come for me"; but frankly, for now, I value stability and longevity for our nation more than its abstract ideals about freedom of speech.
By then it's too late, that's kind of the point of that poem.
By then it's too late, that's kind of the point of that poem.
I'm going to take a guess that you've not lived under an actual regime of censorship. This is not it, and quite honestly basically all speech which threatens others is restricted. There are always limits, and just because other crossed them does not necessarily mean that restrictions are going to tighten further.
It's extremely interesting how EU countries nearly all have different kinds of restrictions on free speech (or don't even have it) but nobody would go out and label Germany or France as anything different than liberal democracies. Meanwhile to many here private companies banning Parler apparently equals Chinese-level censorship.
In Germany Parler would have been banned months ago for "Volksverhetzung" ("incitement of the masses") because Germany knows what happens when you let right- or left-wing extremists indoctrinate the masses.
In Germany Parler would have been banned months ago for "Volksverhetzung" ("incitement of the masses") because Germany knows what happens when you let right- or left-wing extremists indoctrinate the masses.
Might you only be thinking this isn't a censorsous because your thoughts aren't the ones being censored?
How is it hard to understand that private companies can set their own terms of use?
I'm having a real hard time understanding how anyone, especially business people can misunderstand this.
Simple: It's not censorship.
I'm having a real hard time understanding how anyone, especially business people can misunderstand this.
Simple: It's not censorship.
Weird thing is the current 'public forum', i.e. the place where debate is had, is fully run by private companies.
The fact that access to the public forum these days requires abiding by a ToS enforced by a private, no-apeal process is bad.
The fact that access to the public forum these days requires abiding by a ToS enforced by a private, no-apeal process is bad.
The simple truth is that these knuckle-draggers plotting for Mike Pence to be executed by firing squad would have at every point in the past never been able to reach a "public forum" of any kind. For all the complaints that we need to engage positively with such wonderfully civil discourse, it's only by virtue of the internet that they're being heard at all. Society previously was very good at ignoring these people, and society was healthier for it.
> the place where debate is had.
No, it's not. Social media is more like a small printing press that will print anyone's little pamphlet. It may be new but it was never the only venue and never will be.
And, there must be some types of moderation to all speech, all.
No, it's not. Social media is more like a small printing press that will print anyone's little pamphlet. It may be new but it was never the only venue and never will be.
And, there must be some types of moderation to all speech, all.
> And, there must be some types of moderation to all speech, all.
There definitely needs to be moderation. But having the power to moderate speech on such a significant platform in the hands of 3 private parties is bad. Not that I think their recent decisions are wrong. But the lack of recourse is scary, and dangerous. Not just dangerous because 'what if they abuse it'.
It is dangerous because people censored by them are much more likely to feel that it _is_ abuse. Hence they don't take the signal and instead have a massive sense of injustice. "How can a decision so big, without appeal being possible, be fair" they think.
> Social media is more like a small printing press that will print anyone's little pamphlet. It may be new but it was never the only venue and never will be.
Social media is the sole source of news and discussion for a lot of people. Sure, there are alternatives, but they fail to reach a large amount of people.
There definitely needs to be moderation. But having the power to moderate speech on such a significant platform in the hands of 3 private parties is bad. Not that I think their recent decisions are wrong. But the lack of recourse is scary, and dangerous. Not just dangerous because 'what if they abuse it'.
It is dangerous because people censored by them are much more likely to feel that it _is_ abuse. Hence they don't take the signal and instead have a massive sense of injustice. "How can a decision so big, without appeal being possible, be fair" they think.
> Social media is more like a small printing press that will print anyone's little pamphlet. It may be new but it was never the only venue and never will be.
Social media is the sole source of news and discussion for a lot of people. Sure, there are alternatives, but they fail to reach a large amount of people.
Ah yes, we’re back to “the bakery is a private company and did nothing wrong”
I think that particular bakery issue is more nuanced than you're making it out to be.
First the came for the fascists and we didn’t say anything... and then they stopped because having more people on their platform is actually good for business. It actually a pretty well balanced situation from a game theory perspective.
It's fear mongering to bring up this "first they came for" stuff.
It reads like a slippery slop fallacy, these are also unusual circumstances.
you are using buzzwords, everything is fear mongering if you fear it. Everything is some kind of fallacy. Make better arguments.
But that person is right. Most of the arguments against private companies banning companies/individuals violating their ToS boil down to something along the lines of "this is a slippery slope, we're on our way to tyranny". But all European countries have limits on free speech and the vast majority are free countries, so all of these arguments are demonstrably false. We don't even have to look to other countries for examples, there has been censorship of various kinds at various times in the US since its founding, and yet there was no inevitable slide to Orwellian tyranny after each instance. The problem is that Americans are far too paranoid—every little thing is perceived an existential threat to you people.
Private companies are distancing them selves from violent groups. So the next logical step is systematic persecution and censorship of other minority groups?
[deleted]
I take issue with the indiscriminate use of the word “censorship”. If a newspaper of a certain inclination only gives space for those that are aligned to its tendencies, no one calls that censorship. Private companies moderate and editorialize. That’s their prerogative. Governments employ censorship.
I think your point would be stronger if there was only one newspaper (Twitter) and the someone said “if you don’t like it, make your own newspaper (Parler)”... and then they banned your new newspaper.
Ignoring the monopoly aspect of this conversation is unhelpful.
Ignoring the monopoly aspect of this conversation is unhelpful.
So how would you write the law that forces me to leave up a post on my site?
If someone posts "Hang Mike Pence" on Erik's Bakeshop Blog in the comments, would you have a law that says I have to leave it up?
What if it's Erik's Bakeshop Blog Network, Home of All Ten of the Most Popular Bakeshop Blogs? Anyone who is Anyone in the Bakeshop Community has a Presence on the EBB Network.
Would you then require me to keep those comments up? Because not having access to the EBBN is professional suicide for a bakeshop professional? Because I'm "ruining lives"? How do you write that law?
Or can I take them down, but I have to continue to allow MagaBakerBabe post, and I am just required to spend money paying content moderators to monitor what they are posting?
I am genuinely curious, from a legal perspective, what is the alternative to "Corporations are allowed to ban people for whatever reason they like, except membership to a protected class"?
Or are we not talking about laws at all, are we saying Google is free to ban whoever they like, but it's Bad, and we're just issuing a strongly worded rebuke here, and we would prefer that anyone with a Blog Network considers the free speech implications of deplatforming users like MagaBakerBabe?
If someone posts "Hang Mike Pence" on Erik's Bakeshop Blog in the comments, would you have a law that says I have to leave it up?
What if it's Erik's Bakeshop Blog Network, Home of All Ten of the Most Popular Bakeshop Blogs? Anyone who is Anyone in the Bakeshop Community has a Presence on the EBB Network.
Would you then require me to keep those comments up? Because not having access to the EBBN is professional suicide for a bakeshop professional? Because I'm "ruining lives"? How do you write that law?
Or can I take them down, but I have to continue to allow MagaBakerBabe post, and I am just required to spend money paying content moderators to monitor what they are posting?
I am genuinely curious, from a legal perspective, what is the alternative to "Corporations are allowed to ban people for whatever reason they like, except membership to a protected class"?
Or are we not talking about laws at all, are we saying Google is free to ban whoever they like, but it's Bad, and we're just issuing a strongly worded rebuke here, and we would prefer that anyone with a Blog Network considers the free speech implications of deplatforming users like MagaBakerBabe?
Free speech versus freedom of assembly. This is their collision. We resolve this by creating protected classes, a concept much of the Parler user base opposes on the grounds of religious freedom. Forcing people and groups of people to associate with those they abhor is also tyrannically tainted.
I'm trying to understand what you are saying.
Much of the Parler user base opposes associating with certain groups of protected classes?
Much of the Parler user base opposes associating with certain groups of protected classes?
We force e.g. racist bakers to sell to black people. Outside protected classes, however, we do not force Apple or Google to associate with Parler. Political affiliation is not a protected class. That’s freedom of assembly.
I'm still trying to understand.
Freedom of speech should only apply to protected classes?
Freedom of speech should only apply to protected classes?
They're pretty sure they'll always be on the right side of history.
Your free speech rights don’t extend to other people’s property. You can say whatever you want but you can’t force other people to host your speech against their will.
At the very least, every company hosted on AWS should be evaluating whether they are liberal enough to stay in Amazon's good graces.
I agree with you. But I think people just want action taken after what happened in the capitol. Empathy for these rioters has gone out the window.
AWS is not a service provided by the state.
It’s not censorship when people are planning to overthrow the government and planning mass-murder.
Sure, sharing weird QAnon memes and Trump worship... I don’t care. That’s the equivalent of Fox News. But using it as a base of communication to overtly threaten to kill members of government (even ones I didn’t vote for) is crossing the line. From the article, there were hundreds if not thousands of users posting plans to regroup and bring guns and bombs to the Capitol with definite coordination between them all. It’s no longer a free-speech issue.
Sure, sharing weird QAnon memes and Trump worship... I don’t care. That’s the equivalent of Fox News. But using it as a base of communication to overtly threaten to kill members of government (even ones I didn’t vote for) is crossing the line. From the article, there were hundreds if not thousands of users posting plans to regroup and bring guns and bombs to the Capitol with definite coordination between them all. It’s no longer a free-speech issue.
Kinda weird to repurpose that example when here it’s literally “first they came for the Nazis.”
[deleted]
“First they came for those that tried to lynch members of congress”.
Yeah, I’m fine with this. You aren’t?
Yeah, I’m fine with this. You aren’t?
This also raises another question. Facebook has much more problematic content in an absolute sense than Parler does, even if they have better moderation. After all, they have a far larger userbase. Parler may have a higher amount of problematic content as a percentage of all its content, but Facebook still has a large total impact. So why is their app still available?
The article that is linked here in the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/technology/apple-google-p...) states examples of Parler deleting content encouraging violence. So it's not as if Parler is doing zero moderation. But it is clear that Facebook and Twitter are not perfect (or even consistent) in their moderation. So where's the threshold for when the unmoderated posts cause you to get deplatformed? That line seems arbitrary to me. It also seems like an unfair line since Parler has only 30 employees. If the response to censorship is "go build your own social network", then surely there needs to be allowance for small social networks that face a sudden influx of new users and traffic. Most users of Parler, and most content, is not problematic.
The same question should be asked when it comes to Twitter banning Trump's account. Twitter's own blog post (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...) does not make a great case for proving Trump was inciting violence - certainly none of the quoted info (like Trump choosing to skip the inauguration) would pass the bar necessary for a court to prove incitement. But a more basic issue here is that the vast majority of those who turned up in DC to support Trump and see him speak did not participate in the riot. Per various sources (example https://www.localdvm.com/news/washington-dc/three-demonstrat...) there were tens of thousands of attendees to the recent DC marches, across several fully-legal fully-permitted events. Out of all that, a few hundred raided the capitol. So if a small percentage of your followers engage in criminal activity, is that cause for a ban? And if that is the case, why wouldn't the same apply to other politicians or activists or social media figures? Why do BLM-affiliated events get a pass, with the criminal elements written off as a small fringe?
The article that is linked here in the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/technology/apple-google-p...) states examples of Parler deleting content encouraging violence. So it's not as if Parler is doing zero moderation. But it is clear that Facebook and Twitter are not perfect (or even consistent) in their moderation. So where's the threshold for when the unmoderated posts cause you to get deplatformed? That line seems arbitrary to me. It also seems like an unfair line since Parler has only 30 employees. If the response to censorship is "go build your own social network", then surely there needs to be allowance for small social networks that face a sudden influx of new users and traffic. Most users of Parler, and most content, is not problematic.
The same question should be asked when it comes to Twitter banning Trump's account. Twitter's own blog post (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...) does not make a great case for proving Trump was inciting violence - certainly none of the quoted info (like Trump choosing to skip the inauguration) would pass the bar necessary for a court to prove incitement. But a more basic issue here is that the vast majority of those who turned up in DC to support Trump and see him speak did not participate in the riot. Per various sources (example https://www.localdvm.com/news/washington-dc/three-demonstrat...) there were tens of thousands of attendees to the recent DC marches, across several fully-legal fully-permitted events. Out of all that, a few hundred raided the capitol. So if a small percentage of your followers engage in criminal activity, is that cause for a ban? And if that is the case, why wouldn't the same apply to other politicians or activists or social media figures? Why do BLM-affiliated events get a pass, with the criminal elements written off as a small fringe?
> Why do BLM-affiliated events get a pass, with the criminal elements written off as a small fringe?
I suspect that this has something to do with the fact that the President of the United States incited a riot rather than it being something that happened along with the protest.
I suspect that this has something to do with the fact that the President of the United States incited a riot rather than it being something that happened along with the protest.
>"First they came for the XYZ ...
The author's life story is instructive here as to how misused this particular trope is in this example.
Martin Niemoller voted for Hitler. Twice! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller
The author's life story is instructive here as to how misused this particular trope is in this example.
Martin Niemoller voted for Hitler. Twice! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller
because they are a platform that tends to host the type of people that actively plot to overthrow our gov't? lol i don't understand where this intellectual both sides type argument comes from. they literally do not pass the sniff test in any measure.
there is no slippery slope here. millions of more "rational" conservatives are absolutely fine and are not being banned. if this purges all the loony bin q-anon and conspiracy theory stuff then i'm for it. you can make that argument if it stays in discussion land, but as we've seen, it actually boiled into violence against the state.
there is no slippery slope here. millions of more "rational" conservatives are absolutely fine and are not being banned. if this purges all the loony bin q-anon and conspiracy theory stuff then i'm for it. you can make that argument if it stays in discussion land, but as we've seen, it actually boiled into violence against the state.
It's not censorship in the least. The government isn't chasing them because of stuff they said. And it's weird that you are using a quote that was coined with respect to the Nazi period, in defense of a group where members are wearing shirts saying "Camp Auschwitz".
What is stopping them from buying a server and hosting their site on thei own server?
Nothing. Except laws against hate speech.
Nothing. Except laws against hate speech.
Which don't exist in the US.
Because no one is "coming" for you friend. You sound deranged.
If you really need a place to scream about killing leftists, go to the park. The homeless vets will probably yell at you to shut up but I promise Amazon won't try to deplatform you.
If you really need a place to scream about killing leftists, go to the park. The homeless vets will probably yell at you to shut up but I promise Amazon won't try to deplatform you.
(Sorry for the delay but I've been swamped since this conflagration.)
Posts like this one are totally unacceptable on HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are—and you posted a ton of these. We ban this sort of account, regardless of which politics they're battling for. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here.
Your recent posts have been using HN primarily for political battle. Please don't do that—it's against the guidelines and it's the line across which we start banning accounts (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...), again regardless of which politics they're battling for. The reason is that it basically destroys what HN is supposed to exist for, which is curious conversation on a wide range of topics.
Posts like this one are totally unacceptable on HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are—and you posted a ton of these. We ban this sort of account, regardless of which politics they're battling for. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here.
Your recent posts have been using HN primarily for political battle. Please don't do that—it's against the guidelines and it's the line across which we start banning accounts (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...), again regardless of which politics they're battling for. The reason is that it basically destroys what HN is supposed to exist for, which is curious conversation on a wide range of topics.
It was only two hours ago when I wrote: "I'm curious if this will also escalate to low-level platforms (will hosting companies, registrars, or even ISPs start taking similar actions on a regular basis?)" when Apple removed the app, following Google Play from yesterday.
It would seem this cycle is certainly not done perpetuating itself as of yet. I think we are going to have some rough times ahead of us unfortunately. I have no interest in this app or those on it, but they are probably going to get much more upset and feel much more persecuted.
It would seem this cycle is certainly not done perpetuating itself as of yet. I think we are going to have some rough times ahead of us unfortunately. I have no interest in this app or those on it, but they are probably going to get much more upset and feel much more persecuted.
I was wondering if you were online to see it and thinking about that comment. I was really surprised to read that, AWS is another level beyond social media de-platforming. Wouldn't there be other harmful things hosted on AWS? Who governs this?
If harmful is planning impending terrorists attacks, they should also be removed, yes.
People weren’t and aren’t up in arms when Isis gets deplatformed.
People weren’t and aren’t up in arms when Isis gets deplatformed.
If people are actually plotting attacks on an open platform, they should be reported to law enforcement. Deleting their accounts may actually give them a nudge towards using proper OPSEC.
Obviously, we aren't talking about people actually plotting attacks though.
Obviously, we aren't talking about people actually plotting attacks though.
The federal law enforcement currently in control by a seditious and insurrectionist president?
Yes, and I think that's one of the first complaints that many think of here, e.g. how many users on Twitter are there that post worse things than Trump, how many thousands of websites does AWS host that are worse than Parler?, and so on.
One might object "Sure, enforcement is not perfect and some bad actors will get by. But at least we are removing some things instead of nothing!", and while they are right about this as a first-order effect, they are missing what happens afterwards: people will, rightfully so, identity that policies are not evenly enforced, and this can have many further effects down the line.
One might object "Sure, enforcement is not perfect and some bad actors will get by. But at least we are removing some things instead of nothing!", and while they are right about this as a first-order effect, they are missing what happens afterwards: people will, rightfully so, identity that policies are not evenly enforced, and this can have many further effects down the line.
Agreed, I think the underlying problem here is selective enforcement.
What happened to a cornerstone of American free world values
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Free speech is in grave danger
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Free speech is in grave danger
You can still say whatever you want, you just can't compel others (including businesses) to assist you in conveying your speech. This is really basic stuff, it is surprising how difficult many otherwise smart people are finding it.
Smart people are finding it difficult because it's absurd to accept that gigantic monopolies are allowed to control the free flow of information.
I can't even go out and speak in a public square, because it's illegal. Internet censorship by corporations is still censorship.
I can't even go out and speak in a public square, because it's illegal. Internet censorship by corporations is still censorship.
[deleted]
you are right from a constitutional perspective, but it's somewhat misses the point.
Private censorship is still censorship, particularly when the public square is privately owned.
if we can't stop the tit for tat between left and right from escalating further I truly fear for this country.
Private censorship is still censorship, particularly when the public square is privately owned.
if we can't stop the tit for tat between left and right from escalating further I truly fear for this country.
To be clear, you're referring to "the right, led by the President, organizes and executes a violent attack on the Capitol, so companies refuse to continue providing services to those people" as a "tit for tat".
There is a difference between cases when business needs to spend effort to assist you, and when it needs to spend effort to prevent you. Here preventing is actually harder, because there is no difference to AWS/Twitter which combination of numbers it stores and it has to go out of its way to read the number and block specifically your speech.
The dominant cost here isn't the cost of the employee that has to update their database, it is the cost of lost advertising or customers angry that your company is providing services to terrorists.
If twitter had done this for advertisers and the customers, their price of their shares would not fall.
Agreed. And, if I don't want to make a cake for a gay wedding no one can compel me to do so.
Certainly a relevant comparison, but if sexual orientation is, like race and gender, a protected characteristic, then it may make sense from a balancing perspective to not allow that to be a valid reason, even if "affiliation with a terrorist group" remains a valid reason to choose to deny service.
[deleted]
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Agreed. We are in a time where language is changing with no questions asked.
(moronically but nonetheless - amen:a-woman? Hate speech? Removing gendered terms while insisting on identifying as a gender)
Look up New Speak from 1984. This is where we are, and where the Party wants us to be :-)
(moronically but nonetheless - amen:a-woman? Hate speech? Removing gendered terms while insisting on identifying as a gender)
Look up New Speak from 1984. This is where we are, and where the Party wants us to be :-)
What happened was an attempted political assassination: Q anon supporters stormed the capitol with guns, zip ties, and pipe bombs, chanting "hang mike pence." I imagine we make "I will kill you" exemptions for free speech.
This is wildly incorrect. ' Q anon supporters storming the capitol with guns, zip ties, and pipe bombs, chanting "hang mike pence' is a dangerous media fantasy. A huge number of people demonstrated, a tiny number broke the law.
We are entering very dangerous, 1930's Reichstag like 'problem, reaction, solution' authoritarianism with these free speech crack downs. Patriot Act 2.0 is ready to go versus 'domestic terrorists'.
Quite the contrary. If anything, the coverage did not show the full story. The majority of these people were out for blood. They erected hanging stations. The fought with the police. This was no demonstration. These people were to overturn the election and hurt or kill anyone who got in their way. Free speech decidedly does not protect this.
Elections cannot be over turned by occupying a building in the USA for a couple hours, This is unnecessarily hyperbolic and very partisan.
Congress completed their duties later in the evening.
Congress completed their duties later in the evening.
Everything said by the person you replied to is the truth, not hyperbole. Just because the mob and their fatal invasion of the nation's capitol was not successful does not mean that their motives were not anti-democratic.
Why are you apologizing for the insurrection's actions?
Why are you apologizing for the insurrection's actions?
[deleted]
[deleted]
There's video evidence, lol: https://twitter.com/59dallas/status/1346963199778828290?s=20
olivermarks(3)
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
"Freedom of religion is not freedom from consequences, you can believe in X god but don't be surprised when we do not allow you into our shops and universities"
Do you see a substantial difference between your statement and the one above?
Do you see a substantial difference between your statement and the one above?
[deleted]
That'd be discrimination against a protected class at a place of public accommodation.
This is more like dropping a person from club membership due to incompatible views or behaviors.
This is more like dropping a person from club membership due to incompatible views or behaviors.
The question is not about what is defined as protected class, but why we needed to start protect religious freedom. Allowing people to escalate disagreements in one issue into sabotage of each other, leads to hostility and all out war.
California makes political view a protected class.
In fact, in 1986, the California ACLU sued a restaurant for excluding Nazis, under California anti-discrimination laws.
The restaurant settled.
http://volokh.com/2006/02/24/a-very-strange-but-true-aclu-ca...
In fact, in 1986, the California ACLU sued a restaurant for excluding Nazis, under California anti-discrimination laws.
The restaurant settled.
http://volokh.com/2006/02/24/a-very-strange-but-true-aclu-ca...
It's not as cut-and-dried as you suggest. Individuals--but not broad classes of people--can be excluded based on their behavior. The Nazis likely could be excluded as long as they insisted on wearing Nazi pins/garb, but not merely on suspicion of their beliefs. A spineless out-of-court settlement by an insurer doesn't tell us that much about how the case might have fared in court, only that the insurer chose to avoid further risk.
I think the more interesting part is that the ACLU was committed so strongly to non-discrimination in 1986.
And I agree the settlement doesn’t prove the claim was valid. But why would protection matter less when you’re wearing the garb of the political view you’re trying to express?
If the law is trying to protect unpopular political views from being excluded in public services, it matters the most precisely when they’re wearing MAGA hats or Newsom 2022 pins.
And I agree the settlement doesn’t prove the claim was valid. But why would protection matter less when you’re wearing the garb of the political view you’re trying to express?
If the law is trying to protect unpopular political views from being excluded in public services, it matters the most precisely when they’re wearing MAGA hats or Newsom 2022 pins.
Yes, it is. It requires some impressive mental gymnastics to claim that on the one hand you have free speech, and on the other you have no realistic ability to exercise it. A right - especially a natural right - is only a right when it can be meaningfully exercised.
In particular, free speech only applies to speech you don't like, because nobody is attempting to shut down memes of cute kittens.
In particular, free speech only applies to speech you don't like, because nobody is attempting to shut down memes of cute kittens.
If that's how you define it, nobody will ever have free speech. There are plenty of things people can say that would get them kicked out of my house, de-friended, or fired if they were my employee. I bet you could even think of some scenarios yourself. There will always be the possibility of consequences.
The same thing said in one society can result in people kicking each other, killing each other then causing blood feud for centuries while in another society merely in a lawsuit.
For economy to work, large number of people who dislike each other need to cooperate, so it is generally a good strategy for the society to arrange consequences in such a way as to not cause escalating chain of feud.
For economy to work, large number of people who dislike each other need to cooperate, so it is generally a good strategy for the society to arrange consequences in such a way as to not cause escalating chain of feud.
This is an excellent point. I've been thinking about how to make it succinctly, I think this is as good a way as any.
But violence is being planned on Parler, today. It is an incubator for the escalation you’re talking about. We’ve left the realm of the hypothetical.
If there’s a bar where the owner lets a gang hang out and recruit members and plans crimes, the thing to do is shut down that bar. Not let it go unchecked because the gang will be mad about it.
If there’s a bar where the owner lets a gang hang out and recruit members and plans crimes, the thing to do is shut down that bar. Not let it go unchecked because the gang will be mad about it.
'Violence' is probably being planned on Facebook, Signal, text messages etc etc by all sorts of 'evil doers' to quote GW Bush.
This doesn't mean you ban the medium. section 230 defines bigTech as platforms, not publishers. You don't close down AT&T because someone organized a punch up via text messages.
All reports of activity on Parler seem to indicate it’s basically a breeding ground for right wing extremism, so I think it’s incumbent on you to show why it’s more like text messaging than the aforementioned gang bar.
That said, Parler is not being shut down.
Also, Section 230 has nothing to do with AWS’s relationship with Parler.
That said, Parler is not being shut down.
Also, Section 230 has nothing to do with AWS’s relationship with Parler.
> owner lets a gang hang out and recruit members and plans crime
Then the thing to do is call the police, not gather a mob to shut down the bar.
If people openly plan violence on Parler, then shutting it down will only make it harder for police to prevent it.
Then the thing to do is call the police, not gather a mob to shut down the bar.
If people openly plan violence on Parler, then shutting it down will only make it harder for police to prevent it.
No mob has gathered to shut down Parler, so I’m not really sure where that fits in (ironic, though, since people are using Parler to plan literal mob attacks).
Parler’s business partners are abandoning it, sure, but that’s by no means a “mob”. It’s much more akin to the bar’s suppliers refusing to sell it ingredients for drinks, if we want to stick with this analogy.
Parler’s business partners are abandoning it, sure, but that’s by no means a “mob”. It’s much more akin to the bar’s suppliers refusing to sell it ingredients for drinks, if we want to stick with this analogy.
You kicking someone out of your house doesn't change the fundamental balance of society.
AWS, Apple and Google deciding on behalf of 3 billion people what they're allowed to read, most certainly does.
AWS, Apple and Google deciding on behalf of 3 billion people what they're allowed to read, most certainly does.
Ding, ding, ding. No points for abiding viewpoints you don't vehemently object too.
Disagree, loud and resolute by all means, but stifle not the discourse, lest civility lapse to violence.
Disagree, loud and resolute by all means, but stifle not the discourse, lest civility lapse to violence.
[deleted]
but is perfect enforcement even possible?
If it isn't, does that mean companies shouldn't bother enforcing at all?
I agree, it's a very complicated issue, and there will be repercussions, but that shouldn't stop a company from taking down this sort of thing. No reasonable company wants to be associated with this. Especially if people on Parler are planning something worse in the future.
I agree, it's a very complicated issue, and there will be repercussions, but that shouldn't stop a company from taking down this sort of thing. No reasonable company wants to be associated with this. Especially if people on Parler are planning something worse in the future.
The number of users that almost pulled off an insurrection is pretty small.
They banned the app because the moderation policies allowed for said insurrection attempt to occur. There are tons of posts explicitly calling for violence that violate Parler's Terms of Service, yet have not been removed from Parler, meaning that there's a failure to moderate the platform. If Parler actually moderated its content to prevent users from plotting insurrection, the app would probably not have been removed. But the whole draw of Parler is that it never would have removed that content. Since high-profile Parler users were promoting Stop the Steal and potential violence, the app's userbase would see removal as a violation of "free speech social media" and move on from Parler to the next thing that allows them to talk about it.
It's not punishing all Parler users for the actions of a small group on Parler, it's punishing Parler itself for failing to keep that small group from breaking its own rules, along with Apple's, Google's, Amazon's, etc. I don't see anything wrong with that.
It's not punishing all Parler users for the actions of a small group on Parler, it's punishing Parler itself for failing to keep that small group from breaking its own rules, along with Apple's, Google's, Amazon's, etc. I don't see anything wrong with that.
sjwalter(3)
They were dancing around in viking hats! That is not people almost pulling off an insurrection. What is with this lunacy?
Gallows were setup outside, multiple pipebombs found, many carrying guns, molotov cocktails found.
Does this look like a buncb of people dancing around?
https://youtu.be/cJOgGsC0G9U
Does this look like a buncb of people dancing around?
https://youtu.be/cJOgGsC0G9U
As much as I dislike Parler, I very much so hope that ISPs don't ban it. Imagine if ISPs get to block whatever website they deem dangerous. That cannot have a good ending.
Somehow ISPs are going to use this as an argument against https etc.
This might be an interesting argument for municipal broadband which occurred to me last night: in that situation the ISP is in fact bound by the First Amendment, which limits its ability to do that sort of thing quite a bit...
[deleted]
Is Cloudflare still hosting ISIS sites? I know it was when the owner woke up in a "bad mood" and booted the first site from the service.
I think we should worry less about those users who are already radicalized, and more about those who would have been if Parler remained.
There are a lot of rumors right now that the president will spin up his own media service after leaving office. He even hinted at that in his last tweets. Parler recent troubles is maybe opening up a space for him. But I’m curious what steps they will take to avoid this situation. I suspect it will be heavily moderated...
He can't afford that financially
Well, Trump might not. But it would be an EXCELLENT grifting opportunity. He personally pulled in hundreds of millions of dollars with "Stop The Steal" donations. No way he can't pull the same thing out of office and make money of off people.
Interesting. I wonder if software has already been developed and is just waiting for launch. Just imagine him doing a daily livestream on his own social platform. Ugh.
It’s also rumored that he’s fleeing to Scotland ahead of the inauguration. He could be planning to operate an opposition platform from the relative safety of a foreign location.
It’s also rumored that he’s fleeing to Scotland ahead of the inauguration. He could be planning to operate an opposition platform from the relative safety of a foreign location.
I find it hard to imagine that anyone, let alone Tr*p and his coterie, can just spin up an engaging social media platform in short order, especially if they can’t be hosted on well known cloud infrastructure.
Additionally even if he does somehow succeed, it seems unlikely that this platform would get any kind of traction beyon his most fervent supporters. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are great because people are on the platform for other reasons. Not so much for a dedicated site.
Additionally even if he does somehow succeed, it seems unlikely that this platform would get any kind of traction beyon his most fervent supporters. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are great because people are on the platform for other reasons. Not so much for a dedicated site.
Scotland says he can’t: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/05/world/europe/trump-scotla...
Wait for the major DNS servers to delist them too.
Hypothetically, how would you go about staying online completely independently?
Let's say you build your own data center, buy the real estate (because a landlord could be pressured to cancel your lease), purchase all the network equipment, and hire your own full-time employees.
You still need to lease an IP block and a fiber connection from a carrier (like AT&T, Century Link, etc.). Couldn't they deplatform you too? Is there any law that says AT&T etc. cannot refuse service? Otherwise, is there any way to get an indie data center on the internet without going through any other company?
Every other utility seems to be regulated. For example even if you have a Confederate flag or a picture of Stalin outside your house, the local electric and water companies are not allowed to turn off your service as long as you are paying the bill.
Let's say you build your own data center, buy the real estate (because a landlord could be pressured to cancel your lease), purchase all the network equipment, and hire your own full-time employees.
You still need to lease an IP block and a fiber connection from a carrier (like AT&T, Century Link, etc.). Couldn't they deplatform you too? Is there any law that says AT&T etc. cannot refuse service? Otherwise, is there any way to get an indie data center on the internet without going through any other company?
Every other utility seems to be regulated. For example even if you have a Confederate flag or a picture of Stalin outside your house, the local electric and water companies are not allowed to turn off your service as long as you are paying the bill.
> the local electric and water companies are not allowed to turn off your service as long as you are paying the bill.
Public utilities are required to guarantee service as a condition of the monopoly granted them by the state. The server hosting market isn't a monopoly at all, let alone one mandated by the state.
Maybe your point does stand at the ISP level. It probably should since in most places there are just a couple of them, and Internet access is close enough to essential today.
https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/older_consumers/consumer_fac...
Public utilities are required to guarantee service as a condition of the monopoly granted them by the state. The server hosting market isn't a monopoly at all, let alone one mandated by the state.
Maybe your point does stand at the ISP level. It probably should since in most places there are just a couple of them, and Internet access is close enough to essential today.
https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/older_consumers/consumer_fac...
Tier 1 and 2 is as much of a monopoly as public utilities. If they all deny me service, it would be as hard to get connected as it would be to build my own water pipeline.
> Hypothetically, how would you go about staying online completely independently?
Off the top of my head, things like IPFS (InterPlanetary File System) or the blockchain
Off the top of my head, things like IPFS (InterPlanetary File System) or the blockchain
You can't use IPFS or the blockchain without having a connection to the internet in the first place. If all the ISPs decided to refuse you service, there'd be no way to stay connected to the internet.
Host it in a different country... But it could of course still get blocked by the US government.
The interesting thing about Parler is that the US government and its laws are neutral to it, but no US corporations wish to carry the liability of serving them--regardless of the money they offer. Legally, Parler could operate but no laws exist to guarantee it can.
If this scenario played out in another business, like a restaurant, then nobody could really stop them from operating. Even if the food supply companies stopped delivering, there is a decentralized network of small farmers and transportation companies that could pick up the slack. No such counterpart exists with internet companies. You're either part of the grid or you're out. Come to think of it, that could explain a lot.
If this scenario played out in another business, like a restaurant, then nobody could really stop them from operating. Even if the food supply companies stopped delivering, there is a decentralized network of small farmers and transportation companies that could pick up the slack. No such counterpart exists with internet companies. You're either part of the grid or you're out. Come to think of it, that could explain a lot.
> [...] but no US corporations wish to carry the liability of serving them [...]
are there even any liabilities? I think that they are only trying to block communications (which probably won't work in the end)
are there even any liabilities? I think that they are only trying to block communications (which probably won't work in the end)
Thanks for posting this, I was pondering along the same lines!
> Every other utility seems to be regulated. For example even if you have a Confederate flag or a picture of Stalin outside your house, the local electric and water companies are not allowed to turn off your service as long as you are paying the bill.
TIL that this is due to the implied monopoly. I think the difference is that electricity and water are required for survival but internet isn't so it isn't regulated as such. This can also be extended to the difference in buying milk (walk in and pay cash) vs. buying alcohol (need a current govt issued ID).
> Every other utility seems to be regulated. For example even if you have a Confederate flag or a picture of Stalin outside your house, the local electric and water companies are not allowed to turn off your service as long as you are paying the bill.
TIL that this is due to the implied monopoly. I think the difference is that electricity and water are required for survival but internet isn't so it isn't regulated as such. This can also be extended to the difference in buying milk (walk in and pay cash) vs. buying alcohol (need a current govt issued ID).
[deleted]
Build app on some sort of decentralized blockchain ... though it might be a hurdle to get the average person to use it
> Is there any law that says AT&T etc. cannot refuse service?
Literally Trump's appointee for the FCC removed that regulation (it was called net neutrality).
Literally Trump's appointee for the FCC removed that regulation (it was called net neutrality).
I'm not a huge fan of Parler, but hopefully this move pushes the government to force Apple to allow alternate App stores and/or side loading.
People should be able to run Parler on their phone if they want to, with full API access, not the half-measures that having a web app allow.
People should be able to run Parler on their phone if they want to, with full API access, not the half-measures that having a web app allow.
> hopefully this move pushes the government to force Apple to ...
While I strongly oppose Apple's decision, I even more strongly oppose government involvement as a solution. The government should not be able to compel association, it is essential to maintain freedom of association.
While I strongly oppose Apple's decision, I even more strongly oppose government involvement as a solution. The government should not be able to compel association, it is essential to maintain freedom of association.
> it is essential to maintain freedom of association.
Exactly. That's why the government should enforce my freedom to associate with who I want on my phone.
Exactly. That's why the government should enforce my freedom to associate with who I want on my phone.
Alt-right apps, sites and people weren’t banned for associating with the wrong crowd, they were banned for their role in trying to overthrow the government.
And that's fine. Let the government block those apps. Let's have some due process here. I own my phone, I should be able to put what I want on it.
Apple's ecosystem may not be right for you. It's widely known to be curated, and it seems the majority of Apple users appreciate the curation. It's possible you didn't know the state of the ecosystem when you purchased the device and agreed to the terms, and it's unfortunate you only had 14 days to discover it before the return window closed, if you purchased directly from Apple. Perhaps they will make an exception for you. I've heard they occasionally allow returns outside of that window. Some people have luck selling their devices, and report they retain high resale value.
Non sequitur: My first VCR was a BetaMax. We got it on sale without knowing much about the technology. Once we had it a few days, I really wished it handled VHS tapes, as that's all the movie rental stores had. We returned it.
Non sequitur: My first VCR was a BetaMax. We got it on sale without knowing much about the technology. Once we had it a few days, I really wished it handled VHS tapes, as that's all the movie rental stores had. We returned it.
Any user that wants to could continue using Apple's curated store and apps, regardless of anyone else sideloading... just like the average Android user.
That has nothing to do with them going out of their way to make it impossible to sideload anything.
Apple preventing me from installing a social network by some group people don't like is akin to Ford not letting my car drive to a store owned by people they don't like. Do you think I should have to find a different car manufacturer to drive where I want?
That has nothing to do with them going out of their way to make it impossible to sideload anything.
Apple preventing me from installing a social network by some group people don't like is akin to Ford not letting my car drive to a store owned by people they don't like. Do you think I should have to find a different car manufacturer to drive where I want?
The iPhone is more like a train than a car. Off-tracking, let alone off-roading, is technically prevented. It’s sort of a buyer-beware situation. I get that you’re unhappy with their chosen business model, design decisions and implementation. The natural remedy in a capitalist system is to choose an alternate product from a different manufacturer. You’re free to petition them of course, but the decision remains theirs. Or maybe you can petition the creation of laws to outlaw their business model. But of your three options, the first seems most expedient and reliable.
You intentionally bought a phone with an operating system that intentionally controls what apps are allowed to be on it.
You don't have much of an argument here. No one is forcing you to buy that.
You don't even have the argument that Apple has a monopoly on the smartphone mart. There is a readily available alternative in Android. Android allows you to install whatever you want.
You don't have much of an argument here. No one is forcing you to buy that.
You don't even have the argument that Apple has a monopoly on the smartphone mart. There is a readily available alternative in Android. Android allows you to install whatever you want.
No they were banned for going against the democrat-left establishment. After a summer of rioting and endless attacks on federal property let's dispense with the clutching of pearls that this is something new.
There were no endless attacks on federal property, and there was no organized movement to disturb the peaceful transition of power, nor overthrowing a democratically elected government. Don't peddle lies.
> There were no endless attacks on federal property
It is still happening in 2021 and has been documented previously for months, even after the election. Typical examples here [0][1]. Many more found on Twitter.
So are you now going to stop gaslighting and peddling lies?
[0] https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1347157489456975872
[1] https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=28145...
It is still happening in 2021 and has been documented previously for months, even after the election. Typical examples here [0][1]. Many more found on Twitter.
So are you now going to stop gaslighting and peddling lies?
[0] https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1347157489456975872
[1] https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=28145...
I'm not seeing these people trying to kidnap Senators. I'm not seeing an organized movement to stop a democratic transition of power, nor incitement by the President in favor of such actions, not people walking with guns threatening the lives of others. Vandalism, sure? Are you going to stupidly compare one thing with another?
Your hand waving is not very convincing. I mean Antifa setup it’s own autonomous zone in Seattle, effectively overthrowing the gov’ts authority (albeit on a small and temporary scale). People were killed there. Is this that not sedition or at least a direct attempt to usurp the gov’ts authority?
“Protestors” took over a Seattle City Hall and demanded the mayor resign. Is that not disrupting the legitimate legislative process? Isn’t that attempting to force a legitimately elected official out of office?
The mayor of Portland was being accosted at his home (so much so he moved) and while out in public having dinner (just this past week). Is that not intimidating and threatening our elected leaders?
The point is the left said nothing about about all this violence and rioting and in some cases encouraged it. Said “it was legitimate anger” and therefore authorities shouldn’t try and stop it.
Why the double standard? Why is arson and looting by Antifa given the benefit of the doubt and called “protesting”, while, when the right riots and causes disruption we go right to using words like “coup” and “sedition” and suddenly need to start creating new laws to stop it?
“Protestors” took over a Seattle City Hall and demanded the mayor resign. Is that not disrupting the legitimate legislative process? Isn’t that attempting to force a legitimately elected official out of office?
The mayor of Portland was being accosted at his home (so much so he moved) and while out in public having dinner (just this past week). Is that not intimidating and threatening our elected leaders?
The point is the left said nothing about about all this violence and rioting and in some cases encouraged it. Said “it was legitimate anger” and therefore authorities shouldn’t try and stop it.
Why the double standard? Why is arson and looting by Antifa given the benefit of the doubt and called “protesting”, while, when the right riots and causes disruption we go right to using words like “coup” and “sedition” and suddenly need to start creating new laws to stop it?
> Your hand waving is not very convincing. I mean Antifa setup it’s own autonomous zone in Seattle, effectively overthrowing the gov’ts authority (albeit on a small and temporary scale). People were killed there. Is this that not sedition or at least a direct attempt to usurp the gov’ts authority?
Were people actually concerned that this movement was going to blow out into a full-on anarchist revolt? Was this based on an idea of an all-out violent revolution? This is the only example where they may be a slight point and even so I'm not seeing an explicit call to join into this being amplified.
> “Protestors” took over a Seattle City Hall and demanded the mayor resign. Is that not disrupting the legitimate legislative process? Isn’t that attempting to force a legitimately elected official out of office?
Were they coming in with guns? Did they organize multiple days in advance with the idea of kidnapping legislators? This sounds like infrequent but very much run-on-the-mill instance of protesting.
> The point is the left said nothing about about all this violence and rioting and in some cases encouraged it. Said “it was legitimate anger” and therefore authorities shouldn’t try and stop it.
This is not true, and I'm the sort of person that consumes news from people who are not in favor of the current system. The critique was the violent overreaction of police forces and the fact that while they're getting rubber bullets in the head, actually seditious traitors that stormed the Capitol get coddled and kindly asked to leave.
_That_ is the double standard. The US has a history of allowing violence by white majorities, visible and obvious in the favorable treatment by police forces and legislators, while disproportionally repressing other forces. The deescalation is reserved for seditionists and white supremacists.
Were people actually concerned that this movement was going to blow out into a full-on anarchist revolt? Was this based on an idea of an all-out violent revolution? This is the only example where they may be a slight point and even so I'm not seeing an explicit call to join into this being amplified.
> “Protestors” took over a Seattle City Hall and demanded the mayor resign. Is that not disrupting the legitimate legislative process? Isn’t that attempting to force a legitimately elected official out of office?
Were they coming in with guns? Did they organize multiple days in advance with the idea of kidnapping legislators? This sounds like infrequent but very much run-on-the-mill instance of protesting.
> The point is the left said nothing about about all this violence and rioting and in some cases encouraged it. Said “it was legitimate anger” and therefore authorities shouldn’t try and stop it.
This is not true, and I'm the sort of person that consumes news from people who are not in favor of the current system. The critique was the violent overreaction of police forces and the fact that while they're getting rubber bullets in the head, actually seditious traitors that stormed the Capitol get coddled and kindly asked to leave.
_That_ is the double standard. The US has a history of allowing violence by white majorities, visible and obvious in the favorable treatment by police forces and legislators, while disproportionally repressing other forces. The deescalation is reserved for seditionists and white supremacists.
The context of the grandparent's comment:
> ...After a summer of rioting and endless attacks on federal property let's dispense with the clutching of pearls that this is something new.
You (What I quoted):
> There were no endless attacks on federal property...
You have just lied in that first claim after the fact that the grandparent comment was referencing the summer violence of last year that still continues to this day and that is what I quoted in my comment which is still happening today. Never began to compare anything or started to.
So before you gaslight everyone again, are you now going to stop peddling lies?
> ...After a summer of rioting and endless attacks on federal property let's dispense with the clutching of pearls that this is something new.
You (What I quoted):
> There were no endless attacks on federal property...
You have just lied in that first claim after the fact that the grandparent comment was referencing the summer violence of last year that still continues to this day and that is what I quoted in my comment which is still happening today. Never began to compare anything or started to.
So before you gaslight everyone again, are you now going to stop peddling lies?
There were millions of people in the streets, and the number of violent events was disproportionately small, and was an _excuse_ used by unaffiliated people to loot. To this date there is no association between BLM protesters at large and any willful intent to cause damage at scale or destabilize democracy.
“Overthrow the government”
We are living on different planets. This perspective being is being pushed solely by people who hate trump and his supporters. It’s clearly not true, and it blurs the lines around what happened. If it were true, there would be an actual civil war.
Claiming this only serves to increase the ever-widening divide in our country. There appear to have been thousand of people at the protest (I haven’t listened to any pundits yet, so unsure of the exact estimate), and a small handful participated in this disappointing display.
Be part of the solution, not the problem.
We are living on different planets. This perspective being is being pushed solely by people who hate trump and his supporters. It’s clearly not true, and it blurs the lines around what happened. If it were true, there would be an actual civil war.
Claiming this only serves to increase the ever-widening divide in our country. There appear to have been thousand of people at the protest (I haven’t listened to any pundits yet, so unsure of the exact estimate), and a small handful participated in this disappointing display.
Be part of the solution, not the problem.
Parlor was literally not moderating calls to kill elected officials and disturb the electoral process.
[deleted]
You could buy another phone.
This is the equivalent of saying "if you don't like the laws, just move to a new country!".
Besides the logistical hurdles, one is not a substitute for the other. The pros still outweigh the cons, but that doesn't mean I can't push for better policies to fix the things I don't like.
Besides the logistical hurdles, one is not a substitute for the other. The pros still outweigh the cons, but that doesn't mean I can't push for better policies to fix the things I don't like.
You have that freedom. You can do whatever you like with your phone. What you can’t do is force Apple to make software for you.
Do I? How do I install Fortnight on my iPhone?
I'm not trying to force anyone to make software for my phone. I want Apple to let other people make software for my phone.
I'm not trying to force anyone to make software for my phone. I want Apple to let other people make software for my phone.
“I want Apple to let other people make software for my phone.”
That involves forcing Apple to design their software to do what they don’t want it to do.
Why not just buy the product that does?
I know the answer to that, since you have given it earlier.
It’s because you want Apple’s nice products, and have chosen that over the desire for an open ecosystem.
Nobody is stopping you from having the freedom you want. In fact many companies provide it.
This has nothing to do with rights at all.
It’s just that Apple makes nicer things and you want to force them to meet your needs because the products that do aren’t as nice.
That involves forcing Apple to design their software to do what they don’t want it to do.
Why not just buy the product that does?
I know the answer to that, since you have given it earlier.
It’s because you want Apple’s nice products, and have chosen that over the desire for an open ecosystem.
Nobody is stopping you from having the freedom you want. In fact many companies provide it.
This has nothing to do with rights at all.
It’s just that Apple makes nicer things and you want to force them to meet your needs because the products that do aren’t as nice.
Seriously.
Could there possibly be anything more against the spirit of the Apple 1984 commercial than them kicking off a messaging system that lets people say whatever they want?
What's next, email? Are they going to ban text messages because people say no-no words on there?
Could there possibly be anything more against the spirit of the Apple 1984 commercial than them kicking off a messaging system that lets people say whatever they want?
What's next, email? Are they going to ban text messages because people say no-no words on there?
I think browser could be a logical next. It’s not more rational for Apple to censor the content of the apps you run on your device than the content of the Website you browse on your device.
In a way this is a form of death of net neutrality. What your ISP couldn’t do, Apple and Google happily will.
In a way this is a form of death of net neutrality. What your ISP couldn’t do, Apple and Google happily will.
Could you at least try to argue in good faith? Speculation that email and text messages will be banned by Apple isn't in good faith, or even minimally interesting.
There's no need to ban email. It's unencrypted plain text, with a small number of majority providers. Filtering extremist content at that level should be easy enough.
They already edited the pistol emoji to a squirt gun to further a political agenda.
It's not the same, but it's the same ballpark.
It's not the same, but it's the same ballpark.
Sure, but then theres the monopoly/oligopoly issue which is fair play.
Or the web could be what the web was intended to be, platform less. We effectively killed the notion of “web” when we doubled down on “there’s an app for everything and stopped adding hardware access to mobile browsers.
Makes me said that there’s an app to order a burger from Shake Shack for example.
Makes me said that there’s an app to order a burger from Shake Shack for example.
> People should be able to run Parler on their phone if they want to, with full API access, not the half-measures that having a web app allow.
Under what justification?
These people agreed to the contract. Their BATNA is Android, which allows sideloading, or their web browser, where they can be as unmoderated as they want to be.
There is no problem here. If you want an Iphone supporting app store with more permissible side loading, go build one.
Under what justification?
These people agreed to the contract. Their BATNA is Android, which allows sideloading, or their web browser, where they can be as unmoderated as they want to be.
There is no problem here. If you want an Iphone supporting app store with more permissible side loading, go build one.
Ah! But Parler started after they bought their phone. How could they possibly know something they would want would be banned?
Sure, I'd love to build my own phone. Where do I start?
It'd have to support the apps, though, otherwise mine would have none.
It'd have to support the apps, though, otherwise mine would have none.
Look for open source phones. There are several to start with, and they support Linux and even Firefox's attempt with an OS. Perhaps even a chromium type of Android. Have fun!
No, their BATNA is lobbying the antitrust subcommittee.
Which one?
It's largely been the House side that has taken the lead so far, but a new Democratic Senate would also be interested in regulating Apple's "services" including the App Store.
They can easily get enough Republicans onboard to stop a fillibuster. After the Parler situation, Republicans would no longer feel the need to defend Apple's App Store margins (regardless of whether or not Parler can come back under the proposed laws, the political damage is done).
They can easily get enough Republicans onboard to stop a fillibuster. After the Parler situation, Republicans would no longer feel the need to defend Apple's App Store margins (regardless of whether or not Parler can come back under the proposed laws, the political damage is done).
That's not a best alternative to the negotiated agreement. They should just sideload android or develop their own "Freedom Phone."
You're missing my point. It will be far easier to get laws changed than to develop a whole new phone.
The party that will control Congress in a couple of weeks does not like trillion-dollar companies like Apple. They believe that Apple and others should be considered monopolies, and if there is a court case they believe Apple should have the burden of proving that they aren't a monopoly (unlike current law).
The party that will control Congress in a couple of weeks does not like trillion-dollar companies like Apple. They believe that Apple and others should be considered monopolies, and if there is a court case they believe Apple should have the burden of proving that they aren't a monopoly (unlike current law).
> It will be far easier to get laws changed than to develop a whole new phone.
Disagree, as substitutes presently exist in the form of Android models, which can be sideloaded.
Disagree, as substitutes presently exist in the form of Android models, which can be sideloaded.
I didn’t sign up to anything other than buy an iPhone and while I’m not sad I can’t have a Nazi app on my phone if suddenly they say I can’t have Twitter I will be. It seems weird to have a computer and for the manufacture tell me what I can do with it.
Apple advertises that they review everything that goes on their store. It’s a feature that some people choose it for. It sounds like you chose the phone that had the wrong feature for you.
> Their BATNA is Android, which allows sideloading
Android is not an alternate for iPhone. They are not interchangeable. I don't know why people keep saying this.
Maybe for some people they are interchangeable, but they are sufficiently different that they are not true substitutes.
Android is not an alternate for iPhone. They are not interchangeable. I don't know why people keep saying this.
Maybe for some people they are interchangeable, but they are sufficiently different that they are not true substitutes.
Iphone offers no common services that Android cannot provide. This is why they are saying it.
[X] Phone
[X] Text
[X] Compute Applications
[X] NFC or other near items
I guarantee the vast majority of consumers aren't using more than an extremely limited feature set that both phones happily share with their customers.
Are they produced by the same designer? Nah. But that really doesn't matter for functionality purposes.
[X] Phone
[X] Text
[X] Compute Applications
[X] NFC or other near items
I guarantee the vast majority of consumers aren't using more than an extremely limited feature set that both phones happily share with their customers.
Are they produced by the same designer? Nah. But that really doesn't matter for functionality purposes.
There are many "compute applications" only available on iPhone.
So? There are still alternatives on good old laptops/desktops.
What application of computing (not specific compiled binary, but rather generic spreadsheet, ssh, chat, etc.) is not available on Android? You may have found your next business opportunity if you get moving. You'll simply be responding to capitalism as Parler did when they started, and as Google and Apple are doing now.
What application of computing (not specific compiled binary, but rather generic spreadsheet, ssh, chat, etc.) is not available on Android? You may have found your next business opportunity if you get moving. You'll simply be responding to capitalism as Parler did when they started, and as Google and Apple are doing now.
> So? There are still alternatives on good old laptops/desktops.
I can't carry a laptop in my pocket.
> What application of computing (not specific compiled binary, but rather generic spreadsheet, ssh, chat, etc.) is not available on Android?
I'm not sure how that is in any way relevant, but regardless you know very well that it is completely disingenuous to suggest that someone just "build a new app" for another platform.
Not every spreadsheet is the same. Not every chat app is the same. Someone isn't just going to go out and build another Fortnight because you can't get Fornight on the iPhone anymore.
I can't carry a laptop in my pocket.
> What application of computing (not specific compiled binary, but rather generic spreadsheet, ssh, chat, etc.) is not available on Android?
I'm not sure how that is in any way relevant, but regardless you know very well that it is completely disingenuous to suggest that someone just "build a new app" for another platform.
Not every spreadsheet is the same. Not every chat app is the same. Someone isn't just going to go out and build another Fortnight because you can't get Fornight on the iPhone anymore.
It is not disingenuous, Iphone legitimately offers no major feature you can't get from Android.
You're arguing that feature parity is required for subsitutition, and that is an addled argument. It's not even temporally consistent, as you have prior versions of applications with features removed.
You can carry a laptop in your pocket. Sony VAIO had a mini edition around 2007. You can also use a bag, which has big pockets, and you can connect to networks and even cell networks.
Point is -- your argument here is very weak that the two platforms aren't substitutable, and there really is nothing left to say. Have a pleasant evening or morning, as the case may be.
You're arguing that feature parity is required for subsitutition, and that is an addled argument. It's not even temporally consistent, as you have prior versions of applications with features removed.
You can carry a laptop in your pocket. Sony VAIO had a mini edition around 2007. You can also use a bag, which has big pockets, and you can connect to networks and even cell networks.
Point is -- your argument here is very weak that the two platforms aren't substitutable, and there really is nothing left to say. Have a pleasant evening or morning, as the case may be.
It is, if one of your highest use cases is “Parler we an app on my phone”
One of the main features of buying an iphone is “Apple guarantees my privacy and security”.
If you are choosing the former it strongly suggests you don’t care as much about the latter. Being on a system that allows sideloading is a serious step down in security especially for the non technical majority.
One of the main features of buying an iphone is “Apple guarantees my privacy and security”.
If you are choosing the former it strongly suggests you don’t care as much about the latter. Being on a system that allows sideloading is a serious step down in security especially for the non technical majority.
> It is, if one of your highest use cases is “Parler we an app on my phone”
That is not my highest use case at all. I have an Apple Watch. An Android phone works very poorly/not at all with it. I have an iPad. An Android phone does not easily sync between them. I have a Mac laptop. An Android phone does not sync well between them.
I think the UI on the iPhone is much more intuitive. I can't get that on Android. There are a bunch of apps that are only available on iPhone. The iPhone has better apps for my kids.
I could keep going on, but my point is, there is a lot my iPhone can do that an Android can't, for me.
> If you are choosing the former it strongly suggests you don’t care as much about the latter.
It doesn't in any way suggest that.
> Being on a system that allows sideloading is a serious step down in security especially for the non technical majority.
I agree. So make it hard to do. Put it behind a set of options. Make me have to install a text file on a BSD machine and then sync my phone to enable it. Just make it possible and let me assume the risk.
That is not my highest use case at all. I have an Apple Watch. An Android phone works very poorly/not at all with it. I have an iPad. An Android phone does not easily sync between them. I have a Mac laptop. An Android phone does not sync well between them.
I think the UI on the iPhone is much more intuitive. I can't get that on Android. There are a bunch of apps that are only available on iPhone. The iPhone has better apps for my kids.
I could keep going on, but my point is, there is a lot my iPhone can do that an Android can't, for me.
> If you are choosing the former it strongly suggests you don’t care as much about the latter.
It doesn't in any way suggest that.
> Being on a system that allows sideloading is a serious step down in security especially for the non technical majority.
I agree. So make it hard to do. Put it behind a set of options. Make me have to install a text file on a BSD machine and then sync my phone to enable it. Just make it possible and let me assume the risk.
I didn’t mean you specifically. But for those super motivated to use a Parler app the ability to sideload probably trumps the factors you listed.
I agree they’re not fungible. I like being on iphone for all the ecosystem aspects you describe. But if android worked for some key feature I’d switch, and keep a secondary iphone for my apple watch, imessage etc.
I agree they’re not fungible. I like being on iphone for all the ecosystem aspects you describe. But if android worked for some key feature I’d switch, and keep a secondary iphone for my apple watch, imessage etc.
I like that your position offends both iPhone users and Android users equally. (I really do.)
Ultimately, is there anything that can be done? If you had to pick one specific world-changing action, what would it be, in detail? Your original premise was interesting, but perhaps difficult to codify.
Ultimately, is there anything that can be done? If you had to pick one specific world-changing action, what would it be, in detail? Your original premise was interesting, but perhaps difficult to codify.
If I could change anything, I would codify interoperability and access equality into law. If you have an API on your device and any app has access to it (1st party or not) than all parties should have access to it. It's fine if you want to have private system APIs, but if you're publishing apps for your platform than all apps should have access to the same APIs.
Maybe even specially call out that anyone can install any app they want on their mobile device, and this must be made accessible. You could even add in some weasel words like "after reasonable precautions have been taken" so that Apple can make you jump through some hoops to install an "unapproved" app. Let the courts sort out what is reasonable or not.
Maybe even specially call out that anyone can install any app they want on their mobile device, and this must be made accessible. You could even add in some weasel words like "after reasonable precautions have been taken" so that Apple can make you jump through some hoops to install an "unapproved" app. Let the courts sort out what is reasonable or not.
A good way to expose a lot of users to malicious software.
If a user is willing to go through the hoops to get exposed, I'm not sure anyone should stop them. Also, this is an old and tired argument. Computers have been this way forever. And yet you can build a platform that has a reasonable tradeoff between security and usability.
“And yet you can build a platform that has a reasonable tradeoff between security and usability.“
What examples do you have in mind and what has ‘usability’ got to do with this?
Also - as soon as one reputable App requires users to ‘go through the hoops to get exposed’, any app that can fool users into thinking it is reputable will be able to do so.
What examples do you have in mind and what has ‘usability’ got to do with this?
Also - as soon as one reputable App requires users to ‘go through the hoops to get exposed’, any app that can fool users into thinking it is reputable will be able to do so.
> Being on a system that allows sideloading is a serious step down in security
How? The iOS system sandboxes the binary, so it can't do anything without permission. It can't read files, can't read data like contacts, can't connect to the internet, etc. I think it would be relatively easy for Apple to allow sideloading while maintaining great security. Plus, it would be off by default, so know-nothing users would not be doing it.
How? The iOS system sandboxes the binary, so it can't do anything without permission. It can't read files, can't read data like contacts, can't connect to the internet, etc. I think it would be relatively easy for Apple to allow sideloading while maintaining great security. Plus, it would be off by default, so know-nothing users would not be doing it.
> “Apple guarantees my privacy and security”
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Is Ford an alternate for Toyota?
Not if you're comparing a Prius and an f350. They both do the same task of 'people moving' but have very different appeal and featuresets. Most people could get away with either, regardless of their situation. But there are edge cases where their differences shine.
Prius and F350 are specific models. Android and/or iOS can be on small phones, big phones, tablets, Televisions, etc... So I think the analogy is broader - Ford and Toyota.
Ok fine, let's go with your analogy.
If build quality is my main factor, than Ford is not a substitute for Toyota. If having a Hybrid SUV as big as the Highlander, Ford is not a substitute.
There are lots of reasons people want a Toyota, and Ford doesn't have all those things.
If build quality is my main factor, than Ford is not a substitute for Toyota. If having a Hybrid SUV as big as the Highlander, Ford is not a substitute.
There are lots of reasons people want a Toyota, and Ford doesn't have all those things.
It is either a substitute or a complement as they both are in the automotive industry. A complement is like peanut butter and jelly -- buying both makes life that much better. Clearly this isn't the case here. So let's drop the misapplied definition for "substitute" and move on. Your point is better made by identifying perhaps unjustified cost increases in purchasing (i.e. Toyota unionizes and causes a 0.002% increase in the car price, analogous to the increased difficulty in communication these insurrectionists now have in communicating with their proto-terrorist cells).
No, not really. That brings up a good point. Would people complain if all the car dealerships decided you could only buy American cars from now? Would they say "why are you complaining, you can just get a Ford instead of a BWM"?
People would complain at first, and then either ship their cars or build a new car company.
In fact, this is exactly what folks did to Tesla in the beginning. Of course the difference here was that Tesla owners were not seeking to overthrow democracy in the US.
In fact, this is exactly what folks did to Tesla in the beginning. Of course the difference here was that Tesla owners were not seeking to overthrow democracy in the US.
> Of course the difference here was that Tesla owners were not seeking to overthrow democracy in the US.
I'm not sure how that is in any way relevant to the discussion of Android and Apple being substitutes or not. You keep bringing that up in your other comments too.
To be clear, I don't support people who want to rise up against the US, quite the contrary.
But they still bring to light an important point -- why does Apple get to say what apps I can install in my phone?
I'm not sure how that is in any way relevant to the discussion of Android and Apple being substitutes or not. You keep bringing that up in your other comments too.
To be clear, I don't support people who want to rise up against the US, quite the contrary.
But they still bring to light an important point -- why does Apple get to say what apps I can install in my phone?
Because Apple is running the store. It's their store. And users have voluntarily and intentionally bought into an ecosystem that Apple moderates and curates, because that curation has substantial benefits.
Could we stop feigning ignorance about this?
Could we stop feigning ignorance about this?
I'm well aware that they curate. I can still complain about it try to fix it though, since I like all the other things Apple does. I don't want to switch, I just want my device to be better.
No, it doesn't bring up a good point, and your analogy is poorly drawn.
The situation with Parler and Apple is analogous to expecting a Ford dealership to sell, and promote, Tesla's products, or another car-maker's products.
The situation with Parler and Apple is analogous to expecting a Ford dealership to sell, and promote, Tesla's products, or another car-maker's products.
For the HN demographics? No.
For HN's landscaper? Sure.
For HN's landscaper? Sure.
A substitute need not be identical or equivalent. What you’re describing is a commodity.
Neither Apple or Android are a commodity. They are a differentiated good, but they compete in the same market and are substitutes for each other.
Neither Apple or Android are a commodity. They are a differentiated good, but they compete in the same market and are substitutes for each other.
The government, who will soon be lead by someone of the exact opposite political leaning to the crowd on Parler?
Why can't they have a decent web app? Its not like microblogging requires a complex ui.
Notifications mostly.
This is an important point that I haven't really seen addressed anywhere. Notifications are a crucial engagement tool, and the web doesn't seem to have any API on mobile to allow for them, even for consenting users.
Web push notifications work on most android phones. But not on apple. Apple hasn't figured out a way to get their cut on web apps yet so will make sure they are missing key features.
[deleted]
It exists, but Apple purposely drags their feet when it comes to implementing web standards in mobile Safari that include the web notifications API, and they make it impossible to use a different browser or JavaScript engine on iOS.
Just wanted to point out that iOS Safari currently does not support web notifications, even for PWA. Works on Safari for macOS, but Apple hasn’t allowed it on iOS yet (along with a lot of PWA useful APIs).
[deleted]
I think the web is already the corporate-agnostic way to do apps in. If they lack some device features I think this is a technical limitation and a different topic. Things have got so much better in that regard already in just the last 5-10 years.
That’s another reason to allow alternate app stores.
Absolutely. I have no problem with them not wanting the app in the app store, but they should allow side loading or alternative app stores. We should have the same situation on ios that we have on macos.
[deleted]
Trump likely doesn't have time (or the ability without congress) and it doesn't seem likely that congress and Biden would go after Apple for this.
[deleted]
"This computer is my property, I should be able to run whatever programs I want on it."
This was the hacker ethos from the 90s. Where did that go?
This was the hacker ethos from the 90s. Where did that go?
Not sure why this was dead, or why Apple seems to get a pass on this walled-garden behavior. If Microsoft were to require Windows apps to be installed from the store, people would be outraged. When it's done on mobile (how the majority of the world accesses computing these days), it's seen as a valid "security measure".
Apple doesn't require apps be installed from the Mac App Store. If they did, people would be outraged.
People have different expectations from smartphones (tables, and Chromebooks as well). So long as you know what you are getting when you buy it, this isn't an issue.
People have different expectations from smartphones (tables, and Chromebooks as well). So long as you know what you are getting when you buy it, this isn't an issue.
Windows 10S exists now and to a significant extent, is exactly that.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. You can switch from 10S to normal mode in a few buttons.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/switching-out-of...
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/switching-out-of...
Well there you go, thank you, I appreciate it.
> "Not sure why this was dead"
Looking at their other posts, likely because the user was banned.
Looking at their other posts, likely because the user was banned.
Its pretty simple. Most users aren't hackers.
Apple doesn't make phones to be hacked or tweaked or whatever, they make them to be simple to use and as secure as possible. For most people, this is far more interesting and appealing than being able to side load apps.
Isn't the Pine Phone fundamentally a device made for hackers?
Fundamentally, the market for hacker oriented products is far smaller and less interesting than the market for iPhones. So hacker oriented tech is by nature going to lag the market or be more expensive.
Apple doesn't make phones to be hacked or tweaked or whatever, they make them to be simple to use and as secure as possible. For most people, this is far more interesting and appealing than being able to side load apps.
Isn't the Pine Phone fundamentally a device made for hackers?
Fundamentally, the market for hacker oriented products is far smaller and less interesting than the market for iPhones. So hacker oriented tech is by nature going to lag the market or be more expensive.
It didn't go anywhere. Even in the 90s, there were all kinds of devices on which you were completely unable to run your own software.
There still are.
Nothing has fundamentally changed.
There still are.
Nothing has fundamentally changed.
It didn’t go anywhere. PCs, Macs, and Android phones still work that way.
There is also an option for people who want a curated environment.
There is also an option for people who want a curated environment.
doubt_me(2)
IOS security depends on the gated appstore model to prevent private iOS api access/abuse.
Alternate app stores would jeopardize its famed security
Alternate app stores would jeopardize its famed security
Letting me run what I want on my iPhone won't make your iPhone any less secure.
The api should not be insecure and able to be abused (and it largely is very secure today). Sure they might be able to violate some ToS items like embedding their own payment processor but they won't compromise the security of the phone like they could on a desktop OS.
Ok, agree partially. I mostly meant privacy rather than security. What i wanted to say: iOS is nowadays famed for siding with the user (gateway process to weed out bad/malicious apps), restricting tracking and giving the user more control over what data is shared and so on. 3rd party stores would change that. Security could also be impaired by 3rd party stores neglecting to police malicious apps (eg. compare to some android 3rd party stores that often host pirated apps piggybacking malicious code). Likewise, apps on iOS 3rd party appstores might act maliciously (copying your credentials during auth in an embedded browser etc)
I also dont like what Apple did to Tumblr when they had to change their content policy and how BigTech generally projects US values onto the world (eg. nudity).
PS: I trust Android's F-Droid store more than the PlayStore due to its strong gateway process (anti tracking, pro privacy, FOSS only).
I also dont like what Apple did to Tumblr when they had to change their content policy and how BigTech generally projects US values onto the world (eg. nudity).
PS: I trust Android's F-Droid store more than the PlayStore due to its strong gateway process (anti tracking, pro privacy, FOSS only).
The same folks who think you can't force a bakery to bake a gay cake want to force Apple to distribute an app or Twitter to publish anyone's nonsense.
You can't have it both ways. For the self-proclaimed free-marketers, how is this different?
It's about scale. We have an antitrust issue, not a free speech issue.
You can't have it both ways. For the self-proclaimed free-marketers, how is this different?
It's about scale. We have an antitrust issue, not a free speech issue.
You could reverse that no? The same people who think you should force someone to bake a cake now thinks a private company should not be forced to do anything. Just playing devils advocate.
By the way completely agree with you on antitrust. And its not a free speech issue.
By the way completely agree with you on antitrust. And its not a free speech issue.
>You could reverse that no?
One thing that continues to bother me is that on almost any political issue (or even non-political issue) where people point out a double standard, you can easily reverse it and get a reciprocal double standard held by the side claiming the other has a double standard. Yet this is always ignored. By always, I mean I cannot think of a single case where I've seen the side doing the calling out realize that it was reversible on them. I have seen a number of memes from third parties calling out the two major sides as being reciprocal double standards, if that counts for anything.
One thing that continues to bother me is that on almost any political issue (or even non-political issue) where people point out a double standard, you can easily reverse it and get a reciprocal double standard held by the side claiming the other has a double standard. Yet this is always ignored. By always, I mean I cannot think of a single case where I've seen the side doing the calling out realize that it was reversible on them. I have seen a number of memes from third parties calling out the two major sides as being reciprocal double standards, if that counts for anything.
Yep, it is hypocrisy abound. There is absolutely no standard besides yielding the levers of power for whatever is politically expedient. We are getting played on a massive scale, and it is deeply alarming.
Ah, but gender (and by extension, sexual orientation according to SCOTUS) is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act. Political affiliation is not a protected class.
And the reason for this is that we now believe that gender and sexual orientation are not subject to conscious thought but are “hard coded” into a person. Whereas political affiliation (and politically motivated acts of violence) are still thought to be choices that can be freely made or changed.
I’m not sure this argument holds in general.
For example, you could change your religion and it would still be illegal to discriminate on that basis.
For example, you could change your religion and it would still be illegal to discriminate on that basis.
I think the argument holds for religion too.
I can decide to not say offensive things in a store so as to not be kicked out. But I can't decide to change my faith to be allowed entry to the store, because faith doesn't work like that. You can't force religious belief. At most, I could pretend to change my professed religion. But my faith remains unchanged and unchangeable.
I can decide to not say offensive things in a store so as to not be kicked out. But I can't decide to change my faith to be allowed entry to the store, because faith doesn't work like that. You can't force religious belief. At most, I could pretend to change my professed religion. But my faith remains unchanged and unchangeable.
I don’t think it holds in general for all civil rights, but I do think this change in mindset underpins the increased protection of gender and sexual orientation vs 20 or 30 years ago. Even the typical verbiage has changed, from sexual preference to orientation.
> political affiliation (and politically motivated acts of violence) are still thought to be choices that can be freely made or changed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/#:~:tex....
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/#:~:tex....
I definitely agree that the growing body of knowledge about the brain and how personalities develop will be a huge challenge to our notions of free will and responsibility under the law.
There are some other examples of protected classes that don't fit this profile. Religion/creed for one. But also the speech of labor organizers in the workplace is protected, but being a labor organizer is not "hard coded".
You can change gender. And of course you can change sexual orientation, it's just preference.
Look I think you’ve got the spirit but in practice it’s not as simple as that. If transgender people could simply choose not to be their lives would be instantly markedly improved. Nobody signs up to be part of a class of people met with disgust, mockery, routine violence, sexual assault, job discrimination, losing their friends and families, crippling loneliness, and huge medical and therapy bills. They do it because they literally cannot live as their assigned gender.
"Nobody signs up to be part of a class of people met with disgust, mockery, routine violence, sexual assault, job discrimination, losing their friends and families, crippling loneliness"
To me it sounds like you could just as well be describing conservatives.
To me it sounds like you could just as well be describing conservatives.
This is one of the best comments I've read here LOL!
They literally described what it's like to be a left coast conservative.
They literally described what it's like to be a left coast conservative.
The difference here is that discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited under federal civil rights laws, so if you're going to bake a wedding cake for a straight person, you cannot refuse to do so for someone else because they're gay. As far as I can tell, the company Parler does not fall into a protected class.
Laws only describe the way things are, not the way things should be.
In other words that's a really shallow argument.
In other words that's a really shallow argument.
How about this, it's not hypocritical to think that discrimination against gay people is wrong but "discrimination" against people calling for violence is right. It's only hypocritical if you think that calling for violence and being gay are equally morally wrong. That or if you think that those who were saying you shouldn't discriminate against minorities were also including people calling for murder as a minority (they weren't).
Ok, so heres the argument in other words: Gay people should be able to live their lives with the same rights and privileges of any straight person. I do not believe in similar protections for a company that exists to host and promote the violent extremist rhetoric shunned elsewhere by polite society.
That bakery likely has a staff of two people and a dozen competitors offering equivalent services within a few miles.
On the other hand, the public square, itself, has been privatized into the hands of multi-billion-dollar corporations from whom there is no appeal.
Nobody actually needs a cake. But a head of state needs to talk to his citizens and his citizens need to hear him, even if we think he is a [insert epithet, here].
On the other hand, the public square, itself, has been privatized into the hands of multi-billion-dollar corporations from whom there is no appeal.
Nobody actually needs a cake. But a head of state needs to talk to his citizens and his citizens need to hear him, even if we think he is a [insert epithet, here].
> Nobody actually needs a cake. But a head of state needs to talk to his citizens and his citizens need to hear him, even if we think he is a [insert epithet, here].
And all that head of state needs to do is hold a press conference to be heard. He or she does not need Twitter, or Facebook, or Parler, or any other social media platform.
And all that head of state needs to do is hold a press conference to be heard. He or she does not need Twitter, or Facebook, or Parler, or any other social media platform.
Holding a press conference means that the message gets filtered through media companies with their own agendas (OAN or CNN; pick your poison).
The Internet is meant to dis-intermediate communication. That is its purpose. It's one of the things that makes it such a disruptive change over legacy media platforms. The current de-platforming trend is an attempt to put that genie back in the bottle.
The Internet is meant to dis-intermediate communication. That is its purpose. It's one of the things that makes it such a disruptive change over legacy media platforms. The current de-platforming trend is an attempt to put that genie back in the bottle.
So? We could start a "government information bureau" to fix that, if we wanted.
A “government information bureau?”
Wow! Another bureaucracy that'll have its own factions with their own agendas that will never work against either their superiors or the electorate.
Wow! Another bureaucracy that'll have its own factions with their own agendas that will never work against either their superiors or the electorate.
I love how you ignore the last 3 words of the comment.
> But a head of state needs to talk to his citizens and his citizens need to hear him
He could send a letter. I think the USPS is obligated to carry it.
He could send a letter. I think the USPS is obligated to carry it.
Donald Trump is only the 3rd U.S. president to have access to social media.
He does not need Twitter or Facebook to reach his constituents; he has a press briefing room in the White House and 24/7 access to reporters. And guess what, whatever he says will get covered by everyone, posted and discussed immediately.
When people argue that social media is too powerful because the President needs it, they are according these companies with way more power then they actually have.
He does not need Twitter or Facebook to reach his constituents; he has a press briefing room in the White House and 24/7 access to reporters. And guess what, whatever he says will get covered by everyone, posted and discussed immediately.
When people argue that social media is too powerful because the President needs it, they are according these companies with way more power then they actually have.
I think you're right about antitrust. Apple prevents side loading so this goes beyond them deciding not to distribute. So even if parler wanted to self distribute it can't (for iPhones at least).
They can't distribute a native app. They can continue to operate on Apple devices as a website or a PWA (whatever "PWA" means).
Is the distinction between these two important?
Is the distinction between these two important?
PWAs are blockaded from a ton of native functionality (push notifications etc.) on iOS. They are much more level with native apps on Android, but still lack access to many native features.
The distinction is important if you believe you should be able to run whatever software you want on a piece of general purpose hardware you purchase.
The distinction is important if you believe you should be able to run whatever software you want on a piece of general purpose hardware you purchase.
Yes. PWA != app.
Forums existed before iPhone or the App Store.
Yeah, but the web has less reach than the web + native apps.
A judge isn’t going to (seriously) consider PWAs if Microsoft sued Apple for not allowing xCloud on iOS.
A judge isn’t going to (seriously) consider PWAs if Microsoft sued Apple for not allowing xCloud on iOS.
Right so its less about the technical merits of apps vs websites and more about whether Apple should have to promote them or not.
I've heard a few references to the Masteriece Cakeshop decision in a few social medial channels I'm on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...).
I think the comparison is pretty unhelpful. At stake in that case, and those on the right, was a concern of being coerced into violating one's religious beliefs because of Colorado's anti-discrimination law. The legal arguments at the time were if it violated the cake shop's 1st amendment rights of free exercise of religion.
In today's context there is no anti-discrimination law for the likes of Parler, nor is there a concern that being forced to keep an app like Parler online would violate any constitutionally protected rights of these service providers should a statute ever be passed that did.
Those backing the cake shop decision did largely for the free exercise of religion, not an appeal to the free market.
Disclaimer: I didn't think a cake shop should be allowed to deny service because it's for a gay wedding.
I think the comparison is pretty unhelpful. At stake in that case, and those on the right, was a concern of being coerced into violating one's religious beliefs because of Colorado's anti-discrimination law. The legal arguments at the time were if it violated the cake shop's 1st amendment rights of free exercise of religion.
In today's context there is no anti-discrimination law for the likes of Parler, nor is there a concern that being forced to keep an app like Parler online would violate any constitutionally protected rights of these service providers should a statute ever be passed that did.
Those backing the cake shop decision did largely for the free exercise of religion, not an appeal to the free market.
Disclaimer: I didn't think a cake shop should be allowed to deny service because it's for a gay wedding.
The difference, of course, is that, unlike Parler, a “gay cake” poses no threat whatsoever to democracy.
So I’d say we can definitely have it both ways.
So I’d say we can definitely have it both ways.
Anyone looked at the three sample complaints?
7 upvotes, 2 upvotes, 5 upvotes.
For context, the post (I'm guessing he is a co-founder or some senior person at Parler) John Matze has 34,000 upvotes. These posts seem like bad or manufactured examples.
What prevents a competitor from sending a few people to post these things to eliminate competition?
Or worse. Who remembers Knew Knowledge faking Russian bots to smear a candidate as being backed by Russia? [1]
I write this as a muslim American. In my youth having a seasonal job in a well-known resort. I had a local guy come to me, called me a "camel jockey", "towel head" and told me if he sees me in the parking lot he'll take out his 357 and put one in my head. So I have faced some nasty racism. That said, I don't agree with Amazon removing Parler on the basis of these flimsy evidence.
[1] https://siliconangle.com/2018/12/26/reid-hoffman-apologizes-...
7 upvotes, 2 upvotes, 5 upvotes.
For context, the post (I'm guessing he is a co-founder or some senior person at Parler) John Matze has 34,000 upvotes. These posts seem like bad or manufactured examples.
What prevents a competitor from sending a few people to post these things to eliminate competition?
Or worse. Who remembers Knew Knowledge faking Russian bots to smear a candidate as being backed by Russia? [1]
I write this as a muslim American. In my youth having a seasonal job in a well-known resort. I had a local guy come to me, called me a "camel jockey", "towel head" and told me if he sees me in the parking lot he'll take out his 357 and put one in my head. So I have faced some nasty racism. That said, I don't agree with Amazon removing Parler on the basis of these flimsy evidence.
[1] https://siliconangle.com/2018/12/26/reid-hoffman-apologizes-...
There is a sub dedicated to sharing Parler content that threatens violence, among other things. https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch. You can find many more examples there.
Do you realise how easy it is to find content like that on twitter and fb and other places - why aren't they shut down and blacklisted ?
Look at the @ParlerTakes account on Twitter or r/ParlerWatch. There are thousands of examples of this on a relatively small social media site.
Don't plead ignorance. Parler is as bad as 8chan with some of the most vile and despicable chatter I've ever seen in my life.
Companies have a right to refuse service to a customer for any reason (the reason doesn't have to be disclosed). Imagine as a startup, being forced to sign a contract (under duress) that you know is not aligned with your long term goals.
All roads lead back to about half a dozen companies. The concentration of power is astonishing and terrifying. They have all of the US, maybe even the world, checkmated. Nothing good will come from this.
This comment makes it sound like AWS controls web hosting for the entire planet.
There are literally thousands of web hosting options; Parler can go find a different one.
There are literally thousands of web hosting options; Parler can go find a different one.
Then you can't get the news out because Google blocks you from search, nobody can tweet about your site, you can't find it on the app stores, Facebook won't let you put ads, and/or Cloudflare won't give you DDoS protection, so I guess you just make your own parallel universe?
None of the examples you've cited are the only option. Can't use Google, Facebook, or Twitter? Advertise on TV, buy billboards, or hand out flyers on the corner. Can't use CloudFlare? Buy another solution or spend millions to build one yourself -- CloudFlare is, by no means, the sole provider of such services.
The minute you force a company to do business with people they don't want to do business with is the minute you've nationalized the business. So that's the solution -- if the US government so strongly believes that these resources are vital to society in the way that, say, the electric grid is, they need to turn them into regulated utilities. Until then, they are profit-seeking companies who believe they are protecting their shareholders by choosing to refuse service to a customer.
The minute you force a company to do business with people they don't want to do business with is the minute you've nationalized the business. So that's the solution -- if the US government so strongly believes that these resources are vital to society in the way that, say, the electric grid is, they need to turn them into regulated utilities. Until then, they are profit-seeking companies who believe they are protecting their shareholders by choosing to refuse service to a customer.
None of these examples is the only option in the same way your local power company isn't the only option for getting power, because you can also buy a generator.
We still consider power companies a monopoly. It doesn't matter much that some alternatives exist if they are so inferior.
We still consider power companies a monopoly. It doesn't matter much that some alternatives exist if they are so inferior.
Power companies are considered a monopoly because they have a special right of way to run their lines. I can't just put my own power lines up on the high tension lines that run over state owned land, or the telephone poles that run down city owned streets.
And from a practical standpoint, depending on how _much_ power you need there may be no other way to get power to your property besides the grid.
None of that applies to Amazon. For every service they offer, there's an alternative available.
And from a practical standpoint, depending on how _much_ power you need there may be no other way to get power to your property besides the grid.
None of that applies to Amazon. For every service they offer, there's an alternative available.
I don't worry about it because it means incredible value and competence from those organizations. If the web was a fractured mess of providers it would be impossible to find the good ones. Now, it is in these large companies' best interest to provide a safe and reliable internet service.
This of course brings up the highly controversial issue of whether you should optimize your architecture for multicloud or go all-in on one provider.
Edit: I would recommend Corey Quinn's thread for more background, but tl;dr it's hard to get kicked off AWS and it's not happening due to political slant
https://twitter.com/QuinnyPig/status/1348130385411018752
Edit: I would recommend Corey Quinn's thread for more background, but tl;dr it's hard to get kicked off AWS and it's not happening due to political slant
https://twitter.com/QuinnyPig/status/1348130385411018752
Parler should have known this was a risk going in. Being able to switch cloud providers is important if there is potential for controversy for your service.
From what Corey Quinn is saying, they have to be doing something really, really bad to get kicked off AWS, and no other host would abide it. Self-hosting wouldn't help them either, since their ISP could just yank the plug for the same reasons.
For reference, AWS hosts The National Enquirer, which threatened to leak, er, extremely sensitive photos of Jeff Bezos.
For reference, AWS hosts The National Enquirer, which threatened to leak, er, extremely sensitive photos of Jeff Bezos.
> For reference, AWS hosts The National Enquirer, which threatened to leak, er, extremely sensitive photos of Jeff Bezos.
Described by someone as a "below the belt selfie".
Described by someone as a "below the belt selfie".
Not really. There is a difference between multicloud and cloud agnostic.
At this point you should definitely go multicloud and I will have to present that point to my company or I would be derelict in duties.
bra-ket(2)
I'm distressed and saddened at how many of the free speech proponents on HN are treating the events of January 6 as if it was just another protest and not an existential threat to the republic.
The president's followers said for weeks that "the storm" was coming Jan 6. Nobody took them seriously. Look what happened. The president and his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and other followers incited it. Yes the execution of the insurrection was ham-fisted, and it failed to prevent the electoral count from completing, but that's irrelevant. If the mob had managed to find and destroy the electoral certificates, or if the flex-cuffs guys had captured members of congress, we would be talking about something very different now.
The president has a history of responding to setbacks by doubling down. His followers have now begun talking about returning with arms. Only fools would assume that these threats are idle talk or jokes.
The western liberal value of free speech has never extended to incitement of violence. My assumption is that the leaders of Apple, Google, and Amazon don't want to provide a platform for sedition.
The president's followers said for weeks that "the storm" was coming Jan 6. Nobody took them seriously. Look what happened. The president and his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and other followers incited it. Yes the execution of the insurrection was ham-fisted, and it failed to prevent the electoral count from completing, but that's irrelevant. If the mob had managed to find and destroy the electoral certificates, or if the flex-cuffs guys had captured members of congress, we would be talking about something very different now.
The president has a history of responding to setbacks by doubling down. His followers have now begun talking about returning with arms. Only fools would assume that these threats are idle talk or jokes.
The western liberal value of free speech has never extended to incitement of violence. My assumption is that the leaders of Apple, Google, and Amazon don't want to provide a platform for sedition.
They had zipties, bombs, weapons and gallows. Can you imagine if one of those people who've spent 2 years reading hateful news about AOC would've done if they managed to make it to her office? Honestly January 6 could've ended much worse, and if something isn't done to put a break to the vitriot going unchecked on Parler, it very well may happen.
These people were recruiting and planning everything on Parler, doxxing and sharing information. This is what happens when a platform goes unmoderated. People like to think that a 100% free speech platform is great, but every instance of it I've seen has devolved into child porn, doxxing and violence.
These people were recruiting and planning everything on Parler, doxxing and sharing information. This is what happens when a platform goes unmoderated. People like to think that a 100% free speech platform is great, but every instance of it I've seen has devolved into child porn, doxxing and violence.
By what measure are you attributing all of this to any App specifically? What if 60% of the violent offenders were radicalized via Twitter? If this were a court case all of the platforms would be implicated.
On what ground will you stand on to prevent another crypto war? [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
On what ground will you stand on to prevent another crypto war? [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
If 60% is from Twitter, we eradicate 60%. Good
You are not eradicating anything. You are removing people them from your view AND pissing them off in the process. A time tested key for success.
This is the same thing an abuser says to their spouse.
Please provide an example because what you're saying doesn't make sense to me.
Making them leave (= leaving them) will be bad because it “will only make them angrier” and it won’t really solve anything.
Just because it’s also used by abusers doesn’t mean it’s always incorrect. Clearly the divide has been growing, and if you think deplatforming the right (which of course immediately went on to create their own platforms, so there’s now left wing and right wing echo chambers) isn’t at least partly to blame, then what is?
A time tested key for success of what exactly?
These moves successfully de-platformed and pissed off racists and terrorists, very good.
These moves successfully de-platformed and pissed off racists and terrorists, very good.
I think the point is that "pissing off" radicals is more cathartic than useful. What moderate people want is to thwart their ambitions, but ideally de-radicalize them so that they are no longer dangerous people in need of thwarting. The main argument I see against a move like this is that it may temporarily achieve the former but only at the expense of the latter.
Personally, I believe that de-platforming is a useful tool when radicalization is spreading like a contagion, but only if it is applied in a consistent way and with well defined boundaries.
Personally, I believe that de-platforming is a useful tool when radicalization is spreading like a contagion, but only if it is applied in a consistent way and with well defined boundaries.
Yeah I agree.
But de-platforming the radicalizing accounts is an effective way to de-racalize.
But de-platforming the radicalizing accounts is an effective way to de-racalize.
Radicalization is the process feeding someone an explanation for feelings they already have. We have to address the root cause. For a huge segment of people the root cause is the hollowing out of the middle class over the last 50 years. We're completely incapable of solving this problem with the same economic tools we've been using.
Taking away communication kicks the can down the road in the same way.
Taking away communication kicks the can down the road in the same way.
Yes I don’t disagree that addressing the root cause is important.
But we should disable radicalization immediately because they already organized to attack the capitol.
But we should disable radicalization immediately because they already organized to attack the capitol.
> For a huge segment of people the root cause is the hollowing out of the middle class over the last 50 years.
I keep hearing this, but the data shows a different story. Trump supporters (and Republicans) in general are wealthier than Democrats, and the country as a whole.
See https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps...
I keep hearing this, but the data shows a different story. Trump supporters (and Republicans) in general are wealthier than Democrats, and the country as a whole.
See https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps...
Deplatforming from what I understand works in deradicalization at the population level. That is, if you want a smaller population of radicals, you deplatform them. If you want less radical behavior, you deplatform them.
(NOTE: the following paper also covers what happens to the radicals who remain radicals post-deplatforming, which is super interesting.) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02673231209220...
(NOTE: the following paper also covers what happens to the radicals who remain radicals post-deplatforming, which is super interesting.) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02673231209220...
This worked against ISIS and I didn't see anyone complaining about free speech then.
Exactly. They have no right to the megaphone that social media offers.
Let them build their own websites and find their own audiences.
This is quarantining of ideological violence.
Let them build their own websites and find their own audiences.
This is quarantining of ideological violence.
The poster and I aren’t doing anything; Twitter, a private company, is refusing to publish their words to limit their legal and brand liability if another coup is attempted. It’s hard for me to argue that they shouldn’t with the laws as written without a law degree. And similarly I have a hard time arguing that the law should be changed where they are disallowed from doing so.
Sure, it's possible (probable?) that all the people planning violence on Parler are going to continue somewhere else.
But do you really think that the world would be better off if they were allowed to continue on Parler? Should nothing be done?
But do you really think that the world would be better off if they were allowed to continue on Parler? Should nothing be done?
It is already happening. The community has contingency plans for each of their communication channels being shut down.
One of the things not in the news is that a 30K user discord server was shut down this week. The community is switching to matrix.org/telegram/signal and has slick on boarding media to funnel users onto these platforms with step by step guides on how to setup accounts and get vetted. The on-boarding process is better documented by these groups than the services themselves.
I've also seen contingency comms plans in opposition groups starting to form should platforms try to cull both sides in an attempt to been seen as playing fair.
What's the end game look like for communities who want to avoid moderation? Things like decentralized immutable message ledgers with vetted in person trust chains becoming an in-demand/enabling technology. If it is mathematically possible to secure comms it will be used.
My personal take? Address the root causes of the disaffected population. Monitoring and reacting is fools game.
One of the things not in the news is that a 30K user discord server was shut down this week. The community is switching to matrix.org/telegram/signal and has slick on boarding media to funnel users onto these platforms with step by step guides on how to setup accounts and get vetted. The on-boarding process is better documented by these groups than the services themselves.
I've also seen contingency comms plans in opposition groups starting to form should platforms try to cull both sides in an attempt to been seen as playing fair.
What's the end game look like for communities who want to avoid moderation? Things like decentralized immutable message ledgers with vetted in person trust chains becoming an in-demand/enabling technology. If it is mathematically possible to secure comms it will be used.
My personal take? Address the root causes of the disaffected population. Monitoring and reacting is fools game.
I agree with addressing the root causes, but that's a separate issue that Amazon/Apple/Google aren't responsible for.
It seems like this argument boils down to: if the community violating the TOS is organized enough that shutting it down won't stop them, then an exception should be made to the rules.
It seems like this argument boils down to: if the community violating the TOS is organized enough that shutting it down won't stop them, then an exception should be made to the rules.
> that's a separate issue that Amazon/Apple/Google aren't responsible for.
The problem is that no one is responsible for this issue. There is no existing social construct that can address this problem.
> then an exception should be made to the rules.
By all means shut down communities. Just keep in mind that it won't solve the long term problem.
The problem is that no one is responsible for this issue. There is no existing social construct that can address this problem.
> then an exception should be made to the rules.
By all means shut down communities. Just keep in mind that it won't solve the long term problem.
Hate crimes and the related seem to involve a very small tiny amount of people dedicated to the cause of genocide and a revolving door of a much larger contingency who is susceptible to in the moment but eventually decides it's too extreme, not for them, etc and killing people of a religious group/racial group/political ideology doesn't achieve their goal of the other group actually isn't trying to kill them.
The exact same arguments were made for info wars when they were banned. There was a big jump in numbers the first couple weeks and when they could no longer recruit the susceptible they disappeared from all serious discussions of conservative view points. Elimination of bad faith arguments doesn't actually amplify those views on timescales that actually matter.
The exact same arguments were made for info wars when they were banned. There was a big jump in numbers the first couple weeks and when they could no longer recruit the susceptible they disappeared from all serious discussions of conservative view points. Elimination of bad faith arguments doesn't actually amplify those views on timescales that actually matter.
You are limiting their ability to recruit and viralize their message.
These are terrorists we are talking about, not conservative grandparents sharing memes on facebook.
These are terrorists we are talking about, not conservative grandparents sharing memes on facebook.
All of the platforms are used to radicalize terrorists. Not just Trump, look at Anwar al-Awlaki or Anjem Chaudhry. All platforms need to work together to eradicate incitement to violence.
The problem with this is that it doesn't end with parler and similar. It ends with a new bill being passed where the ability to make communication platforms of anything is effectively stripped from any small person from making. It will be delegated solely to big corporations with government approval.
The NYT Daily podcast yesterday had some insightful info from some of their reporters on the ground.
The president was basically communicating with the mob through Twitter. Ten minutes after Trump tweeted that his VP was a coward and a traitor, the mob that had invaded the Capitol started chanting, "Give us Pence". This is as the U.S. VP is also being evacuated.
The president was basically communicating with the mob through Twitter. Ten minutes after Trump tweeted that his VP was a coward and a traitor, the mob that had invaded the Capitol started chanting, "Give us Pence". This is as the U.S. VP is also being evacuated.
“Coward and a traitor.”
Is that an actual quote or are you editorializing?
The actual Tweet is “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country”.
I do also recall that he called out Pence during the speech leading to the riot as well.
However the thing that stood out the most to me at that speech is that his son said they would make the party the “Trump Republican Party”, which seemed to indicate a coming purge.
Now at the time, I thought it would be a nonviolent purge, but considering the riot I am not sure what was actually intended since his followers took that to mean Pence should be hanged.
I do also recall that he called out Pence during the speech leading to the riot as well.
However the thing that stood out the most to me at that speech is that his son said they would make the party the “Trump Republican Party”, which seemed to indicate a coming purge.
Now at the time, I thought it would be a nonviolent purge, but considering the riot I am not sure what was actually intended since his followers took that to mean Pence should be hanged.
> not an existential threat to the republic.
Because it wasn't. Not even close. Snowden materials demonstrated a threat to the republic.
This is nothing by comparison.
Inexplicably lax security allowed a mob to get access to the Capitol building and break the windows and fight and take selfies with police (including a few tragic deaths), a bad situation that was corrected within hours.
It's like saying the protests of Summer 2020 put Minneapolis in existential danger, or Seattle in existential danger.
> If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire fucking thing down.
> Sep 18, 2020 https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330
You could make such wild claims (and many on the other side HAVE), but hopefully most people understand that for what it actually is.
---
There's so much exaggeration and hyperbole on all sides, and this just proves provides more evidence for conspiracy theories. It might be your moral right to fan the flames of this fire, but I wish you wouldn't.
The solution to bad speech is more speech, not less.
EDIT: And let's say you're right, that there's large amounts of open unironic sedition in the US. I doubt forcing it onto Gab or elsewhere is really a net win.
Revolutions happen when people believe they do not have a voice. It's mindboggling to think that removing people's ability to speak is going to make people less violent.
You're taking away their peaceable recourse and leaving them with unpeaceable options. What do you think is going to happen??
That just so backwards from what should be the goal. Proponents of free-speech intuitively realize this.
---
WHAT WAS WORSE: The Reichstag fire, or the reaction to it?
Because it wasn't. Not even close. Snowden materials demonstrated a threat to the republic.
This is nothing by comparison.
Inexplicably lax security allowed a mob to get access to the Capitol building and break the windows and fight and take selfies with police (including a few tragic deaths), a bad situation that was corrected within hours.
It's like saying the protests of Summer 2020 put Minneapolis in existential danger, or Seattle in existential danger.
> If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire fucking thing down.
> Sep 18, 2020 https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330
You could make such wild claims (and many on the other side HAVE), but hopefully most people understand that for what it actually is.
---
There's so much exaggeration and hyperbole on all sides, and this just proves provides more evidence for conspiracy theories. It might be your moral right to fan the flames of this fire, but I wish you wouldn't.
The solution to bad speech is more speech, not less.
EDIT: And let's say you're right, that there's large amounts of open unironic sedition in the US. I doubt forcing it onto Gab or elsewhere is really a net win.
Revolutions happen when people believe they do not have a voice. It's mindboggling to think that removing people's ability to speak is going to make people less violent.
You're taking away their peaceable recourse and leaving them with unpeaceable options. What do you think is going to happen??
That just so backwards from what should be the goal. Proponents of free-speech intuitively realize this.
---
WHAT WAS WORSE: The Reichstag fire, or the reaction to it?
Let's take it for what it is: a completely unacceptable act of violence by a few people instigated by the constant delivery of blatant lies.
At first the lies were shocking: "Biggest inauguration ever? What the hell is he talking about? Didn't he see the pictures? Oh, alternative facts.. LOL. Well, good thing they're incompetent and not dangerous."
Now the lies are dangerous. So many were complaining 4 years ago because this arc seemed inevitable. Let someone lie and verbally attack anyone who slightly disagrees with them without repercussion and they'll keep pushing to see where the line is.
So many thought: "I'm sure he's learned his lesson this time!" In reality, you'd have to be blinded by naiveté or something worse to think he was going to change or moderate his behavior or tactics.
It's not that people are scared that a few hundred people storming the capital will actually overturn our almost 250 year old democracy. It's that if we don't respond with intense rejection of this behavior, this behavior could easily become an existential threat to the republic. What's to stop the next President from bringing an armed secret service or a willing FBI SWAT team into a Senate proceeding?
The line should have been drawn long before this incident. But now, for sure, if you violently attack the halls of democracy you should be banned from far more than a few private digital platforms.
At first the lies were shocking: "Biggest inauguration ever? What the hell is he talking about? Didn't he see the pictures? Oh, alternative facts.. LOL. Well, good thing they're incompetent and not dangerous."
Now the lies are dangerous. So many were complaining 4 years ago because this arc seemed inevitable. Let someone lie and verbally attack anyone who slightly disagrees with them without repercussion and they'll keep pushing to see where the line is.
So many thought: "I'm sure he's learned his lesson this time!" In reality, you'd have to be blinded by naiveté or something worse to think he was going to change or moderate his behavior or tactics.
It's not that people are scared that a few hundred people storming the capital will actually overturn our almost 250 year old democracy. It's that if we don't respond with intense rejection of this behavior, this behavior could easily become an existential threat to the republic. What's to stop the next President from bringing an armed secret service or a willing FBI SWAT team into a Senate proceeding?
The line should have been drawn long before this incident. But now, for sure, if you violently attack the halls of democracy you should be banned from far more than a few private digital platforms.
> if you violently attack the halls of democracy you should be banned from far more than a few private digital platforms
Not many take issue with that. It's banning the hundreds of thousands other people that's the more problematic thing.
> violently attack the halls of democracy
What makes the "attack" on the Capitol any worse than the "attack" on the White House in Sep 2020?
Mostly just how well security worked. That's it.
If security had done it's job on Jan 6, this would be done.
The currents exist either way. It boggles my mind to think that censorship is how to handle dissent.
Not many take issue with that. It's banning the hundreds of thousands other people that's the more problematic thing.
> violently attack the halls of democracy
What makes the "attack" on the Capitol any worse than the "attack" on the White House in Sep 2020?
Mostly just how well security worked. That's it.
If security had done it's job on Jan 6, this would be done.
The currents exist either way. It boggles my mind to think that censorship is how to handle dissent.
> What makes the "attack" on the Capitol any worse than the "attack" on the White House in Sep 2020?
Those protesters didn't have bombs and guillotines. And they were being beaten and gassed by police, they weren't killing police officers. I hear you that if that mob killed someone it would be just as bad, 100% agree.
> It boggles my mind to think that censorship is how to handle dissent.
Because you have the right to be a jerk in your own house, but not in mine. Twitter is not Trump's house, it's Jack's and his shareholders. Trump's being a jerk so them kicked him out. Some things that will get you banned on Twitter, FB will let slide and visa versa. If people don't like their policies, they can leave. It's a free market, which is a traditional Republican position. It's never been a Republican position to force a company to allow someone to create their own Terms & Conditions or User Agreement or force companies to accept someone as a customer until this modern "free speech should apply to private companies" movement.
And dissent is different than lying. It's clear his ego can't handle losing and he will desperately resort to pressure folks to "find votes" in Georgia, or pressure Senators to not certify electoral votes that withstood every legal challenge. This isn't normal and this isn't OK. It's not like this is a healthy debate or a passionate dissent that someone's getting deplatformed for. This is a dangerous, self-indulgent, completely self-serving game of lying to the public that's already resulted in multiple deaths.
If Trump gets arrested for speaking his mind in a public park then we have a huge problem. Until then, he can build his own platform and spout his ideas there. No one is stopping him and no one should.
Those protesters didn't have bombs and guillotines. And they were being beaten and gassed by police, they weren't killing police officers. I hear you that if that mob killed someone it would be just as bad, 100% agree.
> It boggles my mind to think that censorship is how to handle dissent.
Because you have the right to be a jerk in your own house, but not in mine. Twitter is not Trump's house, it's Jack's and his shareholders. Trump's being a jerk so them kicked him out. Some things that will get you banned on Twitter, FB will let slide and visa versa. If people don't like their policies, they can leave. It's a free market, which is a traditional Republican position. It's never been a Republican position to force a company to allow someone to create their own Terms & Conditions or User Agreement or force companies to accept someone as a customer until this modern "free speech should apply to private companies" movement.
And dissent is different than lying. It's clear his ego can't handle losing and he will desperately resort to pressure folks to "find votes" in Georgia, or pressure Senators to not certify electoral votes that withstood every legal challenge. This isn't normal and this isn't OK. It's not like this is a healthy debate or a passionate dissent that someone's getting deplatformed for. This is a dangerous, self-indulgent, completely self-serving game of lying to the public that's already resulted in multiple deaths.
If Trump gets arrested for speaking his mind in a public park then we have a huge problem. Until then, he can build his own platform and spout his ideas there. No one is stopping him and no one should.
On May 31, they set fire to the Church of the Presidents, threatening the entire city.
(To be clear, as in most cases, I'm sure this was only a tiny minority of extremists.)
> Until then, he can build his own platform and spout his ideas there.
That's exactly what this is about: Parler.
---
EDIT: Not to mention there was an astonishingly low number of casualties for such a deliberately violent attack force.
(To be clear, as in most cases, I'm sure this was only a tiny minority of extremists.)
> Until then, he can build his own platform and spout his ideas there.
That's exactly what this is about: Parler.
---
EDIT: Not to mention there was an astonishingly low number of casualties for such a deliberately violent attack force.
Setting fire to an empty church (arson) is a lot different than attacking an active session of congress (terrorism) with the stated goal of forcibly blocking the certification of the next democratically elected President (coup). Yes, they're both crimes and both bad, but only in the same way that assault and murder are both crimes and both bad.
Parler is still free to operate. Just don't expect the tacit cooperation of those who understand just how bad situation could have been if the mob actually found Pence and did what they were chanting they wanted to do to him.
Parler is still free to operate. Just don't expect the tacit cooperation of those who understand just how bad situation could have been if the mob actually found Pence and did what they were chanting they wanted to do to him.
Kavanaugh's nomination was stopped by a mob too.
Yeah, but they weren’t instructed to go there by a politician. And their goal was to disrupt, not kill.
This is a classic “both sides” argument.
Are you arguing that both sides have done bad things? Yes, that’s true. Everyone at some point in their life has done a bad thing, so you will always be able to point out “a bad thing”.
Are you arguing that both sides have done bad things of the same degree? No way. I’d love to hear an example of any other party leader in history using the inflammatory language Trump has used, lying about election results to supporters and begging politicians to overturn an election, resulting in terrorism and multiple deaths. This is unprecedented, inexcusable and unfortunately completely predictable.
This is a classic “both sides” argument.
Are you arguing that both sides have done bad things? Yes, that’s true. Everyone at some point in their life has done a bad thing, so you will always be able to point out “a bad thing”.
Are you arguing that both sides have done bad things of the same degree? No way. I’d love to hear an example of any other party leader in history using the inflammatory language Trump has used, lying about election results to supporters and begging politicians to overturn an election, resulting in terrorism and multiple deaths. This is unprecedented, inexcusable and unfortunately completely predictable.
I don't know of any example in the last 150 years of a party leader doing that.
But this isn't about Trump; this is about Parler and the consistency of AWS is applying to its Terms and Service to of service for hundreds of thousands of users over the weekend.
Trump doesn't even use Parler AFAIK; his actions are related but tangential to the core issue of Parler + AWS.
But this isn't about Trump; this is about Parler and the consistency of AWS is applying to its Terms and Service to of service for hundreds of thousands of users over the weekend.
Trump doesn't even use Parler AFAIK; his actions are related but tangential to the core issue of Parler + AWS.
Parler is not independent though, in the sense that they rely on Amazon servers, and Amazon has a right to decide who they do business with.
Similarly, Google and Apple can choose who they allow to use their marketplaces. On Android I believe Parler wouldn't have too hard a time distributing their app on their own. But granted, on Apple devices, I think installing non App Store software is a non-starter for most people.
This begs a somewhat unrelated question though--why doesn't Parler just live as a web application that doesn't require an app? They would still have to migrate from AWS, but it would still allow people to continue using it despite Google and Apple's decisions, right?
Similarly, Google and Apple can choose who they allow to use their marketplaces. On Android I believe Parler wouldn't have too hard a time distributing their app on their own. But granted, on Apple devices, I think installing non App Store software is a non-starter for most people.
This begs a somewhat unrelated question though--why doesn't Parler just live as a web application that doesn't require an app? They would still have to migrate from AWS, but it would still allow people to continue using it despite Google and Apple's decisions, right?
and no one has said that parlor has to shut down. if you agree with the train of thought that if twitter doesn't want you go and start your own, then you apply that same logic to Apple and Google saying they don't want parlor.
What do you think an existential threat to the republic would look like?
1. Nuclear capabilities by North Korea or Iran.
2. Snowden-ish conspiracies by unelected, unaccountable intelligence agencies.
3. Large-scale conflict with China.
4. High-fatality disease: SARS or similar (COVID but more deadly)
Terrorism, foreign or domestic, doesn't even scratch the list of "existential threats." Terrorist acts don't win heats and minds and unless aided by state actors (dirty bombs, etc) are tiny in the numbers game, even for sometime like 9/11.
2. Snowden-ish conspiracies by unelected, unaccountable intelligence agencies.
3. Large-scale conflict with China.
4. High-fatality disease: SARS or similar (COVID but more deadly)
Terrorism, foreign or domestic, doesn't even scratch the list of "existential threats." Terrorist acts don't win heats and minds and unless aided by state actors (dirty bombs, etc) are tiny in the numbers game, even for sometime like 9/11.
If you were to end the republic without the usual mass murder (nuclear war, pandemics, etc.) How would you do it?
If you took out the Senate and legislature, would that work? What if you could guaranteed their protection was understaffed when you attempted it?
If you took out the Senate and legislature, would that work? What if you could guaranteed their protection was understaffed when you attempted it?
It would be a big problem, but I don't think so. It wasn't in the realm of possibility on January 6, but for sake of argument.... Say the entire Sentate and House is wiped out somehow. They are not essential for day to day governance. State Governors would make emergency appointments to replace them as a first response. It would be hugely disruptive and chaotic, but I think the republic would survive. The republic is the states. The people in Washington are just the representatives.
They wouldn't wipe out the entire US House and Senate. They would wipe out only those who didn't agree to object to the certification of the Biden's election. They would eliminate Senators and Representatives until Trump was appointed. Now you have an illegitimate president. As you say, the republic is the states, and I don't see how e.g. the Republic of California continues in the Union at that point.
> They are not essential for day to day governance.
Remember that states are not allowed to print their own money as the federal government is. States are now spending vast amounts of money to combat Covid. The federal government is funding these efforts by literally printing dollar bills. If the federal government fails to prop up states, you're looking at states unable to fund hospitals, police, teachers, utilities, etc. If the entire House is eliminated, there's no one to vote on federal budgets, and governors cannot just appoint Representatives as they can Senators -- Representatives must be elected in a special election in their districts according to the constitution. Meaning money from the federal government would just dry up without the House. Obviously the framers never anticipated this edge case.
> They are not essential for day to day governance.
Remember that states are not allowed to print their own money as the federal government is. States are now spending vast amounts of money to combat Covid. The federal government is funding these efforts by literally printing dollar bills. If the federal government fails to prop up states, you're looking at states unable to fund hospitals, police, teachers, utilities, etc. If the entire House is eliminated, there's no one to vote on federal budgets, and governors cannot just appoint Representatives as they can Senators -- Representatives must be elected in a special election in their districts according to the constitution. Meaning money from the federal government would just dry up without the House. Obviously the framers never anticipated this edge case.
This could have led to Trump's appointment, depending on how the states were allocated votes (allocated by whom?)
That would have been a very bad situation that I wouldn't want to see how it played out.
That would have been a very bad situation that I wouldn't want to see how it played out.
A. If assassination is the method to institute change, SCOTUS would be target #1, due to succession rules. (Side note: Pelican Brief.)
B. I'm not saying there wasn't any wacko who fantasized about overthrowing the the Government and throning an Emperor.
But regime change through force is an impossible task. See: The last 50 years of American foreign policy.
B. I'm not saying there wasn't any wacko who fantasized about overthrowing the the Government and throning an Emperor.
But regime change through force is an impossible task. See: The last 50 years of American foreign policy.
Regimes do change through force. See for example Ghana or Nigeria or Egypt.
However, the impetus has to come from within the country or else the new regime will be seen as a puppet state and face challenges it is unable or unwilling to handle.
However, the impetus has to come from within the country or else the new regime will be seen as a puppet state and face challenges it is unable or unwilling to handle.
> But regime change through force is an impossible task.
Isn't that exactly how most coups are done? Take Iran in '79 as an example.
Isn't that exactly how most coups are done? Take Iran in '79 as an example.
> If you took out the Senate and legislature, would that work? What if you could guaranteed their protection was understaffed when you attempted it?
Nope, all of the states would appoint new representatives. There are processes for all of these scenarios.
The senate and house are not necessary for the day to day operation if the republic. They aren’t even there all of the time. Killing a bunch of politicians is not a threat to the republic.
Nope, all of the states would appoint new representatives. There are processes for all of these scenarios.
The senate and house are not necessary for the day to day operation if the republic. They aren’t even there all of the time. Killing a bunch of politicians is not a threat to the republic.
This seems naive - if Senators were executed we would possibly be talking about a full blown transition to an authoritarian Trump regime.
In a scenario where a Trump incited mob executes Senators while the police and national guard do nothing is tantamount to a military coup. The replacements would have no reason to believe that their lives wouldn't also be in danger if they didn't certify Trump as the winner of the 2020 elections. At that point Trump has effectively side stepped the Constitution and usurped power through violence - which is literally the end of the republic.
In a scenario where a Trump incited mob executes Senators while the police and national guard do nothing is tantamount to a military coup. The replacements would have no reason to believe that their lives wouldn't also be in danger if they didn't certify Trump as the winner of the 2020 elections. At that point Trump has effectively side stepped the Constitution and usurped power through violence - which is literally the end of the republic.
> In a scenario where a Trump incited mob executes Senators while the police and national guard do nothing is tantamount to a military coup.
But that’s not even close to what happened. The national guard doing nothing would require buy-in from the entire military chain of command, which has never been very supportive of Trump.
But that’s not even close to what happened. The national guard doing nothing would require buy-in from the entire military chain of command, which has never been very supportive of Trump.
Nobody died, that's what happened. I'm simply answering your hypothetical if the Senators were actually killed.
If the Sentors and/or the VP were taken as hostages, or worse killed, it would mean national guard was either complicit or incompetent. However, as we know, the Secret Service sadly had to act with deadly force and managed to secure the legislature.
If the Sentors and/or the VP were taken as hostages, or worse killed, it would mean national guard was either complicit or incompetent. However, as we know, the Secret Service sadly had to act with deadly force and managed to secure the legislature.
I don't think we've ever seen terrorism condoned or encouraged by anyone as admired or as powerful as Trump in the history of the country, save the Civil War.
It's not like these are some lunatics, they're obedient fans actively consuming what Trump is feeding them and violently acting on it.
Does he have the right to stand in a public park and spout his threats and lies? Absolutely.
Does he have the right to demand access to a private company platform to spout his threats and lies? No way.
Idiots get kicked out of bars for far less every day.
It's not like these are some lunatics, they're obedient fans actively consuming what Trump is feeding them and violently acting on it.
Does he have the right to stand in a public park and spout his threats and lies? Absolutely.
Does he have the right to demand access to a private company platform to spout his threats and lies? No way.
Idiots get kicked out of bars for far less every day.
I think you're confused about the topic.
It's about Parler and its hundreds of thousands of users being deplatformed from AWS, not Twitter banning Trump.
AFAIK Trump doesn't even use Parler.
It's about Parler and its hundreds of thousands of users being deplatformed from AWS, not Twitter banning Trump.
AFAIK Trump doesn't even use Parler.
Sorry, you're right I went on a bit of a tangent there.
I guess the point I was making was that this violent language wouldn't be spreading on Parler if Trump hadn't have abused his Twitter account to drum up this kind of violent extremism with self-serving lies about a free and fair election.
Those hundreds of thousands of users flocked to Parler as a result of Twitter cracking down on this same type of violent speech. So is it really a surprise that AWS cracked down on them too for the same reasons? And Google? And Apple? And Shopify? And others? If you're repeatedly running into bans and suspensions, it could be a multi-company conspiracy to silence you, or it could just be you. I guess that's the debate.
The 1st amendment has limits like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or coordinating to murder the VP of the US.
This isn't the same free speech debate as a professor refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns or someone publishing racist research or someone touting conspiracy theories or someone blowing off steam. This is about a small number of users using a platform to illegally threaten and coordinate violence on others in very explicit and direct terms and that platform standing by their right to do so. The only thing stopping them from following through is their low numbers.
What do we want 2 years from now? Parler letting thousands of people threaten to murder Biden, Pelosi, AOC, Romney or every elected official that doesn't subscribe to their version of reality? No way. History tells us this doesn't end well. "Fall in line or we'll shun you" politics is abhorrent. "Fall in line or we'll harm you" politics is the absolute bottom of group behavior. We have laws against violent speech and conspiracy to commit murder for very valid reasons.
I guess the point I was making was that this violent language wouldn't be spreading on Parler if Trump hadn't have abused his Twitter account to drum up this kind of violent extremism with self-serving lies about a free and fair election.
Those hundreds of thousands of users flocked to Parler as a result of Twitter cracking down on this same type of violent speech. So is it really a surprise that AWS cracked down on them too for the same reasons? And Google? And Apple? And Shopify? And others? If you're repeatedly running into bans and suspensions, it could be a multi-company conspiracy to silence you, or it could just be you. I guess that's the debate.
The 1st amendment has limits like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or coordinating to murder the VP of the US.
This isn't the same free speech debate as a professor refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns or someone publishing racist research or someone touting conspiracy theories or someone blowing off steam. This is about a small number of users using a platform to illegally threaten and coordinate violence on others in very explicit and direct terms and that platform standing by their right to do so. The only thing stopping them from following through is their low numbers.
What do we want 2 years from now? Parler letting thousands of people threaten to murder Biden, Pelosi, AOC, Romney or every elected official that doesn't subscribe to their version of reality? No way. History tells us this doesn't end well. "Fall in line or we'll shun you" politics is abhorrent. "Fall in line or we'll harm you" politics is the absolute bottom of group behavior. We have laws against violent speech and conspiracy to commit murder for very valid reasons.
Are the threats from the left a problem?
Kathy Griffen holding the President's bloody decapitated head?
Or "If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire fucking thing down"? https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330
Or are those not as dangerous? Or have we simply realized that mass censorship makes the situation even worse?
Kathy Griffen holding the President's bloody decapitated head?
Or "If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire fucking thing down"? https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330
Or are those not as dangerous? Or have we simply realized that mass censorship makes the situation even worse?
I guess I don't know how free speech and violent political groups can coexist as violence itself is the most brutal form of censorship.
> Are the threats from the left a problem?
This is a "both sides" argument, that compares apples and oranges. Someone punches a person and someone drives a car into a crowd of innocent people. One is far worse than the other and they're not even in the same ballpark. But when the person who punched someone is "ANTIFA" and the person who drove the car into a crowd is "MAGA" then suddenly we have a debate where there wouldn't have been one if folks had a stronger moral compass than political identity.
Imagine this scenario: A Muslim group with dark skin and long beards, wearing hijabs, led by a billionaire Muslim who dodges condemning 9/11 and openly disparages white people, organizes a "march for Islam" on Marler (Parler for Mulsims) and tries to hunt down various white Christian conservative politicians in the capital building who advocated for the travel ban (killing a police officer in the process) with the stated objective of certifying their Muslim nominee for President who clearly lost the election, yet has been lying about winning and says he'll never concede. Would these same white Christian conservatives being hunted down by a relentless self-serving Muslim politican dust off their near death experience and immediately stand up for Marler and these "very fine" Muslism's right to continue to post their follow up plans for next week?
If modifying the roles in the scenario doesn't feel as comfortable, then this censorship debate might be more related to the social / political identity of those involved than it is about the principle of the debate.
> Or are those not as dangerous?
Kathy Griffen doesn't have the same power as the leader of the free world. Neither does Dr. Reza Aslan, whoever that is. Kathy Griffen's post was messed up and I think they did suspend her for that and made her delete it, right? "Burn the whole thing down" is a euphemism for "start over". Is it inflammatory? Sure. Is it a direct, actionable threat? I don't think so, but I would certainly see it differently if a mob of Aslan's followers showed up carrying torches. Would I have a problem with Twitter deleting the Tweet until he rephrased it to be clear that no violence was intended? No. The more civil our discourse, the more civil our society in my opinion.
I'm all for a very generous line on free speech to make room for very shocking or antagonizing points of views, but when your free speech encourages people to act towards violence and illegally overturning a court-upheld democratic election, I have a huge problem with that because that ultimately leads to more censorship, not less. You think AWS suspending your account and having to self-host is bad? Wait until the capitol mob destroys your business or threatens to kill you. That's true censorship, the kind that's so intimidating and so permanent that you don't dare speak up. That's the kind of censorship the capital mob was advocating for on Parler. Banning a digital account and making you create a new one somewhere else is literally the smallest, most insignificant form of censorship I can think of. And if literally no one will let you create a digital account with them, then maybe it's you and not everyone else. Violence, intimidation and death is the censorship I'm far more worried about. Just look at how brutally effective fascists or the mob can be in censoring entire communities or schools of thought.
> Or have we simply realized that mass censorship makes the situation even worse?
Let's look at Germany who banned Mein Kampf and have "mass censored" the Nazi party, it's symbols and it's ideas. It's not just shunned in Germany to be a Nazi or spread Nazi ideas, it's illegal. Why does Germany believe in "mass censorship"? Because freedom of speech is not all or nothing and censoring Nazis pales in comparison to the alternative of letting Nazi groups freely organize. So, it's not like this road of letting Parlor continue to allow violent political groups to coordinate an uprising leads to more freedom in the long run, it's quite the opposite. From Germany's experience: Want peace and freedom? Then censor those who don't.
In Arnold's recent video (https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/134824948128487424...) he talks about his father's personal experience with slowly going along with Naziism. I've lived in Germany and Austria and seen the remnants of fascism and it's horrifying. What's even more horrifying is how easy it was for 1930's men and women to dismiss Hitler as "not that bad" or "yeah, he says some outrageous things, but he'd never do it" or "at least he's fighting for Germany" or "he went a little far there, but he won't do it again" or "at least Hitler's on my side" (until he isn't). Sure, people like me might sound alarmist and maybe the capital mob fades quietly into history with no further violence, but my Austrian professor who lived through WWII talked at great length about how seamless and natural the transition from the Weimar Republic to Naziism was and this action at the capital certainly reminded me of his stories, just like it reminded Arnold of his father's story. Giving Parler and the capital mob another shot is not the nail in the coffin for democracy, but it is another notch in violent political extremism's tightening belt. And no one knows which notch is the final one, but when it is, there's no room for anyone to breathe. So, instead of flirting with a violent fascist takeover we're asking Parler's users to please rephrase their beliefs in a non-violent way. Seems a pretty small ask.
Many dismiss the capital mob as lunatics, but Hitler was a 3rd rate fanatic and a recurring failure for years before he took power. In fact, the Weimar Republic wanted to work with him specifically because of how inept and easily manipulated they thought he was. Dismissing the gravity of the capital attack because it failed is a huge mistake in my opinion. Germany wasn't a country of evil citizens who loved Naziism, it was a country of really good people who slowly went along with a few really bad people bending the norms until they had normalized the ultimate censorship: death.
Here we know we have a few really bad people. We don't need to be the good people that go along with it and I'm glad that there are people in powerful positions who aren't.
> Are the threats from the left a problem?
This is a "both sides" argument, that compares apples and oranges. Someone punches a person and someone drives a car into a crowd of innocent people. One is far worse than the other and they're not even in the same ballpark. But when the person who punched someone is "ANTIFA" and the person who drove the car into a crowd is "MAGA" then suddenly we have a debate where there wouldn't have been one if folks had a stronger moral compass than political identity.
Imagine this scenario: A Muslim group with dark skin and long beards, wearing hijabs, led by a billionaire Muslim who dodges condemning 9/11 and openly disparages white people, organizes a "march for Islam" on Marler (Parler for Mulsims) and tries to hunt down various white Christian conservative politicians in the capital building who advocated for the travel ban (killing a police officer in the process) with the stated objective of certifying their Muslim nominee for President who clearly lost the election, yet has been lying about winning and says he'll never concede. Would these same white Christian conservatives being hunted down by a relentless self-serving Muslim politican dust off their near death experience and immediately stand up for Marler and these "very fine" Muslism's right to continue to post their follow up plans for next week?
If modifying the roles in the scenario doesn't feel as comfortable, then this censorship debate might be more related to the social / political identity of those involved than it is about the principle of the debate.
> Or are those not as dangerous?
Kathy Griffen doesn't have the same power as the leader of the free world. Neither does Dr. Reza Aslan, whoever that is. Kathy Griffen's post was messed up and I think they did suspend her for that and made her delete it, right? "Burn the whole thing down" is a euphemism for "start over". Is it inflammatory? Sure. Is it a direct, actionable threat? I don't think so, but I would certainly see it differently if a mob of Aslan's followers showed up carrying torches. Would I have a problem with Twitter deleting the Tweet until he rephrased it to be clear that no violence was intended? No. The more civil our discourse, the more civil our society in my opinion.
I'm all for a very generous line on free speech to make room for very shocking or antagonizing points of views, but when your free speech encourages people to act towards violence and illegally overturning a court-upheld democratic election, I have a huge problem with that because that ultimately leads to more censorship, not less. You think AWS suspending your account and having to self-host is bad? Wait until the capitol mob destroys your business or threatens to kill you. That's true censorship, the kind that's so intimidating and so permanent that you don't dare speak up. That's the kind of censorship the capital mob was advocating for on Parler. Banning a digital account and making you create a new one somewhere else is literally the smallest, most insignificant form of censorship I can think of. And if literally no one will let you create a digital account with them, then maybe it's you and not everyone else. Violence, intimidation and death is the censorship I'm far more worried about. Just look at how brutally effective fascists or the mob can be in censoring entire communities or schools of thought.
> Or have we simply realized that mass censorship makes the situation even worse?
Let's look at Germany who banned Mein Kampf and have "mass censored" the Nazi party, it's symbols and it's ideas. It's not just shunned in Germany to be a Nazi or spread Nazi ideas, it's illegal. Why does Germany believe in "mass censorship"? Because freedom of speech is not all or nothing and censoring Nazis pales in comparison to the alternative of letting Nazi groups freely organize. So, it's not like this road of letting Parlor continue to allow violent political groups to coordinate an uprising leads to more freedom in the long run, it's quite the opposite. From Germany's experience: Want peace and freedom? Then censor those who don't.
In Arnold's recent video (https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/134824948128487424...) he talks about his father's personal experience with slowly going along with Naziism. I've lived in Germany and Austria and seen the remnants of fascism and it's horrifying. What's even more horrifying is how easy it was for 1930's men and women to dismiss Hitler as "not that bad" or "yeah, he says some outrageous things, but he'd never do it" or "at least he's fighting for Germany" or "he went a little far there, but he won't do it again" or "at least Hitler's on my side" (until he isn't). Sure, people like me might sound alarmist and maybe the capital mob fades quietly into history with no further violence, but my Austrian professor who lived through WWII talked at great length about how seamless and natural the transition from the Weimar Republic to Naziism was and this action at the capital certainly reminded me of his stories, just like it reminded Arnold of his father's story. Giving Parler and the capital mob another shot is not the nail in the coffin for democracy, but it is another notch in violent political extremism's tightening belt. And no one knows which notch is the final one, but when it is, there's no room for anyone to breathe. So, instead of flirting with a violent fascist takeover we're asking Parler's users to please rephrase their beliefs in a non-violent way. Seems a pretty small ask.
Many dismiss the capital mob as lunatics, but Hitler was a 3rd rate fanatic and a recurring failure for years before he took power. In fact, the Weimar Republic wanted to work with him specifically because of how inept and easily manipulated they thought he was. Dismissing the gravity of the capital attack because it failed is a huge mistake in my opinion. Germany wasn't a country of evil citizens who loved Naziism, it was a country of really good people who slowly went along with a few really bad people bending the norms until they had normalized the ultimate censorship: death.
Here we know we have a few really bad people. We don't need to be the good people that go along with it and I'm glad that there are people in powerful positions who aren't.
Governments is several countries have been toppled with exactly this kind of violence.
What about a decapitation strike resulting in the deaths of competing constitutional officers by allies of the president with the intent of subverting the peaceful transfer of presidential power? Would that not qualify as a threat to the republic?
In other words, what if the mob had gotten its hands on Pence, Pelosi, Grassley, or others? Don't you think that would have been a bigger deal than what transpired with Snowden?
Incidentally, there are reports that a number of Republican members of Congress voted in favor of the president on Wednesday because they feared for the safety of their families. It seems plausible that they might have been influenced by the rioters chanting "hang Mike Pence" as they entered the Capitol. Legislators voting against their judgement because of extortion seems a significant threat to the democratic order.
In other words, what if the mob had gotten its hands on Pence, Pelosi, Grassley, or others? Don't you think that would have been a bigger deal than what transpired with Snowden?
Incidentally, there are reports that a number of Republican members of Congress voted in favor of the president on Wednesday because they feared for the safety of their families. It seems plausible that they might have been influenced by the rioters chanting "hang Mike Pence" as they entered the Capitol. Legislators voting against their judgement because of extortion seems a significant threat to the democratic order.
Multiple politicans have assassinated before, the Republic has carried on.
If there were a lot at once...yeah that could be bad.
But frankly there's just so little chance of that happening. If there was a chance in hell of that happening, Security Service/Capitol police would have actually done something about the protesters.
If there were a lot at once...yeah that could be bad.
But frankly there's just so little chance of that happening. If there was a chance in hell of that happening, Security Service/Capitol police would have actually done something about the protesters.
You seem to place a lot of faith in an institution—the Capitol Police—that most would agree failed spectacularly on Wednesday.
It was pure luck that the doors of the Senate were locked and barred just two minutes before the mob arrived. What do you think would have happened if the rioters had gotten there five minutes before they did, when the doors were still ajar? What do you think those men with flex cuffs were intending to do? It seems that one of them was a retired Air Force lt. colonel. What do you think his motivations were?
It was pure luck that the doors of the Senate were locked and barred just two minutes before the mob arrived. What do you think would have happened if the rioters had gotten there five minutes before they did, when the doors were still ajar? What do you think those men with flex cuffs were intending to do? It seems that one of them was a retired Air Force lt. colonel. What do you think his motivations were?
Orange.
Having lived through the collapse of the USSR, the key events could be:
1. New leaders emerge. Industrialists, generals, university professors, even shipyard electricians. They obtain enormous influence through their personal charisma, leadership skills and the political platform they advocate for (think Martin Luther King).
2. Local municipal authorities stop recognizing the central government. They establish democratically-elected councils to temporarily run things in the power vacuum.
3. Security apparatus flips - police and military will stand by, do nothing and just wait to see how the situation develops. Each battalion and police station aims to maintain reasonable peace in their own district (in cooperation with local authorities) and ignores other orders.
4. Having lost all support and control, the central government collapses under its own weight. They may issue orders, but no-one's following them.
5. A grassroots, national assembly type institution with universal popular support emerges to prepare major legislative reforms such as a new constitution to formalize power transfer to new institutions (new government, new parliament). A referendum or general election seals the deal.
In contrast, a bunch of rednecks breaking in for a few hours, taking selfies and stealing minor items is nowhere near this. They have no real leaders, no platform, no support.
1. New leaders emerge. Industrialists, generals, university professors, even shipyard electricians. They obtain enormous influence through their personal charisma, leadership skills and the political platform they advocate for (think Martin Luther King).
2. Local municipal authorities stop recognizing the central government. They establish democratically-elected councils to temporarily run things in the power vacuum.
3. Security apparatus flips - police and military will stand by, do nothing and just wait to see how the situation develops. Each battalion and police station aims to maintain reasonable peace in their own district (in cooperation with local authorities) and ignores other orders.
4. Having lost all support and control, the central government collapses under its own weight. They may issue orders, but no-one's following them.
5. A grassroots, national assembly type institution with universal popular support emerges to prepare major legislative reforms such as a new constitution to formalize power transfer to new institutions (new government, new parliament). A referendum or general election seals the deal.
In contrast, a bunch of rednecks breaking in for a few hours, taking selfies and stealing minor items is nowhere near this. They have no real leaders, no platform, no support.
I think this is a good response, but I do urge you to consider that there is not one specific form a failing Republic will take.
Also, I would argue that many of these things did take place. America is fortunate there was a competence problem, but I identify many of the items you listed here as having transpired.
A failed <thing> is still an attempted <thing>.
Also, I would argue that many of these things did take place. America is fortunate there was a competence problem, but I identify many of the items you listed here as having transpired.
A failed <thing> is still an attempted <thing>.
> Each battalion and police station aims to maintain reasonable peace in their own district (in cooperation with local authorities) and ignores other orders.
Well, considering that this is how domestic police and national guard already operate in the US—with police operating under municipal authority, or under the authority of the local elected sheriff, and with national guard operating under the authority of each state governor—I don't think observing this would give you any indication that the republic is under threat.
In fact, your points 1, 2 and 3 seem to describe the normal operation of American democracy for the past 200 years or so, with regards to most domestic affairs.
Well, considering that this is how domestic police and national guard already operate in the US—with police operating under municipal authority, or under the authority of the local elected sheriff, and with national guard operating under the authority of each state governor—I don't think observing this would give you any indication that the republic is under threat.
In fact, your points 1, 2 and 3 seem to describe the normal operation of American democracy for the past 200 years or so, with regards to most domestic affairs.
Why are you ignoring that the President instigated the insurrection? Is that irrelevant? The president does have actual power …
More speech is what got us here in the first place
THANK YOU.
>I'm distressed and saddened at how many of the free speech proponents on HN are treating the events of January 6 as if it was just another protest and not an existential threat to the republic.
Could you present an explanation for why?
> If the mob had managed to find and destroy the electoral certificates,
Then nothing different would happen because this particular part of the vote is a formality. Well, the news would be even more one sided on this, but nothing else.
>or if the flex-cuffs guys had captured members of congress
Assuming worse case and he actually killed someone, why would it be much different than attacks in the past like the one at the soft/baseball game. As you said, that it failed is irrelevant to the intended goal.
>The western liberal value of free speech has never extended to incitement of violence.
Yes it has.
First, there is political speech which is going through the most proper channels to enact violence. If you get a law passed, you are forcing people to comply under threat of violence. Talking about changing laws is very central to free speech and includes protecting people pushing even the most cartoonishly evil laws.
But on a more general since, still sticking to US law, the courts have allowed for calls to violence in general and have been very limited in how they restrict it. For example look at all that was said during the summer that was encouraging of riots (not the things said in support of the protests, but said in support of the riots). That is still largely protected free speech.
And on an even more general scale, the concept of free speech does apply to what the founding fathers were discussing leading up to and during the revolutionary war. Sure, Britain's laws would have punished them for it, but the value of free speech that let them rebel is something that was understood and accepted by those forming the new government.
Could you present an explanation for why?
> If the mob had managed to find and destroy the electoral certificates,
Then nothing different would happen because this particular part of the vote is a formality. Well, the news would be even more one sided on this, but nothing else.
>or if the flex-cuffs guys had captured members of congress
Assuming worse case and he actually killed someone, why would it be much different than attacks in the past like the one at the soft/baseball game. As you said, that it failed is irrelevant to the intended goal.
>The western liberal value of free speech has never extended to incitement of violence.
Yes it has.
First, there is political speech which is going through the most proper channels to enact violence. If you get a law passed, you are forcing people to comply under threat of violence. Talking about changing laws is very central to free speech and includes protecting people pushing even the most cartoonishly evil laws.
But on a more general since, still sticking to US law, the courts have allowed for calls to violence in general and have been very limited in how they restrict it. For example look at all that was said during the summer that was encouraging of riots (not the things said in support of the protests, but said in support of the riots). That is still largely protected free speech.
And on an even more general scale, the concept of free speech does apply to what the founding fathers were discussing leading up to and during the revolutionary war. Sure, Britain's laws would have punished them for it, but the value of free speech that let them rebel is something that was understood and accepted by those forming the new government.
If you are going with what the founding fathers wanted then you should be comfortable with PRIVATE (as in not the government) companies doing whatever the hell they want within their terms of service. No contract has been breached when Apple, Google, Amazon deplatformed Parler. If you want to make this into "but they control speech on the internet with their reach..." then it is no longer about "what the founding fathers" wanted and you should be willing to make this a non-absolutist argument in which case it is mo longer clear cut that restricting this speech is bad.
You may want to reread the comment I was responding to. I quote it again.
>The western liberal value of free speech has never extended to incitement of violence.
Never implies going back in time. I was pointing out the historical opinion given does not line up with existing evidence. As such your point point about private companies is irrelevant.
Though I can still point out that we are looking at private companies that are serving as utilities and being given special protections (contracts, regulatory capture, and similar) by the government to the extent they can be considered part of the government.
>The western liberal value of free speech has never extended to incitement of violence.
Never implies going back in time. I was pointing out the historical opinion given does not line up with existing evidence. As such your point point about private companies is irrelevant.
Though I can still point out that we are looking at private companies that are serving as utilities and being given special protections (contracts, regulatory capture, and similar) by the government to the extent they can be considered part of the government.
> > If the mob had managed to find and destroy the electoral certificates,
> Then nothing different would happen because this particular part of the vote is a formality. Well, the news would be even more one sided on this, but nothing else.
I can guarantee to you Trump would have used this an excuse to try to stay in power, or at least use it as another excuse on top of the ones he has concocted already. He's taken plenty of advantage of grey areas to wreak havoc on administrative norms. Furthermore, it would likely have emboldened his supporters to undertake further violent action more quickly.
> Then nothing different would happen because this particular part of the vote is a formality. Well, the news would be even more one sided on this, but nothing else.
I can guarantee to you Trump would have used this an excuse to try to stay in power, or at least use it as another excuse on top of the ones he has concocted already. He's taken plenty of advantage of grey areas to wreak havoc on administrative norms. Furthermore, it would likely have emboldened his supporters to undertake further violent action more quickly.
And he'd have had zero supporters at that point. He'd already lost the VP, who refused his request to reject the votes. Absolutely nobody would have stood with him on extending his term as a result of a violent interruption of this ceremony in the Congress.
130 Republicans in the House voted to overturn two states' election results, not to mention he has an undeniable popular following. I seriously doubt he would have trouble with finding support with a lot of people if he had taken advantage of this. His supporters will follow him no matter what. If storming the capitol wasn't crossing the line, quite frankly, nothing is for them.
> The western liberal value of free speech has never extended to incitement of violence
Here is the court precedence behind this in the US.
"Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action""
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
Here is the court precedence behind this in the US.
"Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action""
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
You've said it, this ruling only applies to the government. Private companies are not bound by this case law.
Likewise, private companies are not required to host any speech, as long as they aren't discriminatory against a protected class.
Cory Doctrow put it best: Let these companies ban whomever, for whatever (legal) reason. Then, push for anti-trust and decentralization, because the REAL problem is we have an oligopoly controlling social media.
Cory Doctrow put it best: Let these companies ban whomever, for whatever (legal) reason. Then, push for anti-trust and decentralization, because the REAL problem is we have an oligopoly controlling social media.
OK, but given that all of the above is true, do you think that deplatforming Parler helps or hurts the overall situation?
What do you think the "deplatformed" people are going to do? Just quit because "oh no our website is gone"?
This event is just fueling the fire IMO.
What do you think the "deplatformed" people are going to do? Just quit because "oh no our website is gone"?
This event is just fueling the fire IMO.
But realistically, these people have been violating the ToS for a long time. Late enforcement is better than no enforcement. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
It's true. The only thing that truly changes behavior is consequences. Arrests for in-person insurrections, trials, convictions, deplatform, disrupt, and I would even say enforce the laws that we do have against incitement of violence, which means arresting people who are posting hateful shit online. This whole thing needs to be busted.
Not doing anything because they might be "upset" is tantamount to surrender. Then they literally are holding us hostage. That cannot be tolerated.
It's true. The only thing that truly changes behavior is consequences. Arrests for in-person insurrections, trials, convictions, deplatform, disrupt, and I would even say enforce the laws that we do have against incitement of violence, which means arresting people who are posting hateful shit online. This whole thing needs to be busted.
Not doing anything because they might be "upset" is tantamount to surrender. Then they literally are holding us hostage. That cannot be tolerated.
Agree, and will add that this should be backed by LEO's tracking online posts inciting violence to people's doors, arresting them, and letting courts decide if it's a free speech issue.
I absolutely agree as far as arrests and convictions for violence, incitements to violence, and conspiracies to commit violent acts.
However, I think deplatforming is a poor long-term solution. Deplatforming on mainstream platforms inspired and fueled the rise of Parler. Deplatforming gets rid of all carrots and all future sticks the mainstream platform has against a given extremist. I think 1-month to 3-month suspensions are more likely to keep followers around, where the mainstream platform has an opportunity to suggest a mixture of center-left and center-right content to them, and provide carrots to rehabilitate extremist publishers.
As I've posted elsewhere, taking Parler offline is probably a necessary short-term solution to an acute threat, but I think it's rarely the right long-term solution.
Edit: I'm fine being downvoted, but if you have a good counter-argument, please post it or a link to it. Try to change my mind instead of just venting your anger.
However, I think deplatforming is a poor long-term solution. Deplatforming on mainstream platforms inspired and fueled the rise of Parler. Deplatforming gets rid of all carrots and all future sticks the mainstream platform has against a given extremist. I think 1-month to 3-month suspensions are more likely to keep followers around, where the mainstream platform has an opportunity to suggest a mixture of center-left and center-right content to them, and provide carrots to rehabilitate extremist publishers.
As I've posted elsewhere, taking Parler offline is probably a necessary short-term solution to an acute threat, but I think it's rarely the right long-term solution.
Edit: I'm fine being downvoted, but if you have a good counter-argument, please post it or a link to it. Try to change my mind instead of just venting your anger.
They won't have a unified place to plan for their next attack in a few days? Where do you think they planned their attack for January 6? Deplatforming has proven to work, if anything heavily slow down the spread of misinformation. What's the last time you heard about Milo?
The planning wasn't done there, just bloviating. The planning was done on telegram and signal (and to a lesser extent Keybase and wire). Lots of people doing osint on the events could tell you that.
Interestingly, the banning of all these accounts has caused the size of the telegram groups to increase dramatically and the discourse to get much more violent.
Interestingly, the banning of all these accounts has caused the size of the telegram groups to increase dramatically and the discourse to get much more violent.
As I've suggested elsewhere, I think 1-month to 3-month suspensions are much better than lifetime bans. Suspensions keep followers hanging around the mainstream platform, where you can suggest centrist content to them.
A lifetime ban gets rid of all carrots and all future sticks the platform can offer.
A lifetime ban gets rid of all carrots and all future sticks the platform can offer.
Sure, but do we really want to platform to take an active and knowing hand in shaping politics?
Right now they have an effect through algorithms, but their actions don’t seem to be coordinated towards any goal other than increasing engagement with the platform. This is actively different than pitching centrist content to extremists because the platform owners are centrists themselves.
What if the platform owners become extremists like Parler?
Right now they have an effect through algorithms, but their actions don’t seem to be coordinated towards any goal other than increasing engagement with the platform. This is actively different than pitching centrist content to extremists because the platform owners are centrists themselves.
What if the platform owners become extremists like Parler?
Up until 3 or 4 years ago, I was nearly a free speech maximalist. Now, it seems clear that society is poorly equipped and adjusting poorly to social media.
I think giving more control to centrist platforms is the least bad of all the bad options I see. I'm not sure how to mitigate the long-term risks introduced, but the bifurcation of society appears to be a slow motion car crash in progress.
I'd love to be convinced that there are better options, especially if they allowed me to move closer to free speech maximalism.
I think it would help to change middle school and high school civics curricula by adding cognitive biases, logical fallacies (including some basic statistical fallacies), and other tools to better handle social media.
I think giving more control to centrist platforms is the least bad of all the bad options I see. I'm not sure how to mitigate the long-term risks introduced, but the bifurcation of society appears to be a slow motion car crash in progress.
I'd love to be convinced that there are better options, especially if they allowed me to move closer to free speech maximalism.
I think it would help to change middle school and high school civics curricula by adding cognitive biases, logical fallacies (including some basic statistical fallacies), and other tools to better handle social media.
Yeah imagine there was a plan except "show up to a rally at this time in this place."
I think even many of Milo's fanbois realized he had jumped the shark even before he got deplatformed.
I think shutting down Parler is a necessary response to an immediate and concrete existential threat to the long-term functioning of the American democracy.
However, the deplatforming of Milo was part of the impetus for the creation of Parler. Keeping Milo on and suggesting center-left content to his viewers would have been a better long-term solution, along with suggesting center-right content to viewers of extreme left content. (Edit: actually, come to think of it, you'd want a mixture of center-right and center-left content suggested to both extremes, to make the medicine taste a bit less bitter.)
Deplatforming may be necessary for immediate threats, but it's not a good long-term solution to the problem of polarization. Long-term, deplatforming feeds the conspiracy theories and pushes viewers further from the reach of mainstream platforms.
I think shutting down Parler is a necessary response to an immediate and concrete existential threat to the long-term functioning of the American democracy.
However, the deplatforming of Milo was part of the impetus for the creation of Parler. Keeping Milo on and suggesting center-left content to his viewers would have been a better long-term solution, along with suggesting center-right content to viewers of extreme left content. (Edit: actually, come to think of it, you'd want a mixture of center-right and center-left content suggested to both extremes, to make the medicine taste a bit less bitter.)
Deplatforming may be necessary for immediate threats, but it's not a good long-term solution to the problem of polarization. Long-term, deplatforming feeds the conspiracy theories and pushes viewers further from the reach of mainstream platforms.
I'd encourage you to read "Talking with strangers".
There's a section in there about the anchoring effect, which basically talks about how if you increase patrols in the worst parts of town and get crime there down, it mostly doesn't just move "elsewhere". These people had good reasons for being drawn to parler and while it won't stop anybody, it's a significant blow I think.
There's a section in there about the anchoring effect, which basically talks about how if you increase patrols in the worst parts of town and get crime there down, it mostly doesn't just move "elsewhere". These people had good reasons for being drawn to parler and while it won't stop anybody, it's a significant blow I think.
The counter-argument is that the main draw of Parler was deplatforming (of people who weren't calling for violence) on mainstream platorms. In hindsight (and for some, in foresight), finding some pool of center-left content to suggest to viewers of far-right social media personalities, and center-right content to suggest to viewers of far-left social media personalities probably would have been a much better long-term solution. I also think you'd want to have 1-month or 3-month suspensions for suggesting violence, rather than full deplatforming, to reduce the number of followers who jump to more extreme platforms.
Edit: actually, I think you'd one pool of center-left and center-right content to show to both extremes, to make the medicine taste less bitter.
Edit: actually, I think you'd one pool of center-left and center-right content to show to both extremes, to make the medicine taste less bitter.
Vice did a very interesting look into this question following the deplatforming of Alex Jones[1]. As is evident from their article title -- "Deplatforming Works" -- the data seem to say it works.
As for the specific concern you mention, they look into it as well:
"'The good that comes with deplatforming is, their main goal was to redpill or get people within mainstream communities more in line with their beliefs, so we need to get them off those platforms,” Robyn Caplan, a PhD student at Rutgers University and Data and Society affiliate, told me on the phone. “But now we’ve put them down into their holes where they were before, and they could strengthen their beliefs and become more extreme.'
The question is whether it’s more harmful to society to have many millions of people exposed to kinda hateful content or to have a much smaller number of ultra-radicalized true believers."
[1]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-...
As for the specific concern you mention, they look into it as well:
"'The good that comes with deplatforming is, their main goal was to redpill or get people within mainstream communities more in line with their beliefs, so we need to get them off those platforms,” Robyn Caplan, a PhD student at Rutgers University and Data and Society affiliate, told me on the phone. “But now we’ve put them down into their holes where they were before, and they could strengthen their beliefs and become more extreme.'
The question is whether it’s more harmful to society to have many millions of people exposed to kinda hateful content or to have a much smaller number of ultra-radicalized true believers."
[1]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-...
I feel like deplatforming because of a TOS violation is much better than "The world's a better place if we deplatform you"
From what I understand, deplatforming actually works to deradicalize people because every time you deplatform, the actual radicalized group lessens. For example, randos from twitter who went to parler to follow their favorite alt-right opinion producer but otherwise don't care about politics probably won't want to follow them a second time and will end up entering less radicalized spaces and then deradicalizing themselves.
At the end you have a small group of severely sick people who can only be helped by therapy, but prevent mass unrest of otherwise normal people who got radicalized only because getting radicalized was as easy as joining a platform.
At the end you have a small group of severely sick people who can only be helped by therapy, but prevent mass unrest of otherwise normal people who got radicalized only because getting radicalized was as easy as joining a platform.
Do you think that extinguishing the fire of your house burning down helps or hurts the overall situation of arson?
Fear of retaliation is how facism thrives. Deplatforming hate groups works.
I agree with you, but I also don't know what else these companies should do. What happened on Jan 6th was coordinated on a lot of these platforms (including Parler).
It seems like the answer to all these types of issues comes down to education at some point. Not that we all need to learn the same point of view, but that we should learn how to think critically. The people who took part in the insurrection on the capital honestly believe a lot of falsehoods propagated on networks like Parlor, FB, Twitter. They aren't all acting in bad faith.
Seems like these networks/platforms have been forced to take the actions they did because people – all of us to some degree or another – choose what we want to believe, wether there's any evidence or not.
It seems like the answer to all these types of issues comes down to education at some point. Not that we all need to learn the same point of view, but that we should learn how to think critically. The people who took part in the insurrection on the capital honestly believe a lot of falsehoods propagated on networks like Parlor, FB, Twitter. They aren't all acting in bad faith.
Seems like these networks/platforms have been forced to take the actions they did because people – all of us to some degree or another – choose what we want to believe, wether there's any evidence or not.
If we're giving that the above is true then the US is basically at war with these people. It's an insurrection.
"If we cut our enemies communications then that's just fueling the fire" is not something you say mid war. You cut and code break and infiltrate and capture and kill and anything else because the time for "deplatforming" and "fuel on fire" and any other business as usual peace time political concept is irrelevant. That game isn't being played any more, the violence game is.
It's like you're playing chess with someone and they just got up and shoved you, and you punched them, and then a bunch of onlookers are all "well what if they had played knight to f4? Would you punch then!? Punching shouldn't be allowed in chess!". Except the chess game ended when they got up and shoved you. Treating these people as political opponents ended when they broke in to the Capitol building with guns and bombs with the stated intent of killing politicians. They're enemies of the state and therefore enemies of institutions that exist thanks to that state and any individual that likes that state.
"If we cut our enemies communications then that's just fueling the fire" is not something you say mid war. You cut and code break and infiltrate and capture and kill and anything else because the time for "deplatforming" and "fuel on fire" and any other business as usual peace time political concept is irrelevant. That game isn't being played any more, the violence game is.
It's like you're playing chess with someone and they just got up and shoved you, and you punched them, and then a bunch of onlookers are all "well what if they had played knight to f4? Would you punch then!? Punching shouldn't be allowed in chess!". Except the chess game ended when they got up and shoved you. Treating these people as political opponents ended when they broke in to the Capitol building with guns and bombs with the stated intent of killing politicians. They're enemies of the state and therefore enemies of institutions that exist thanks to that state and any individual that likes that state.
>I'm distressed and saddened at how many of the free speech proponents on HN are treating the events of January 6 as if it was just another protest
If I'm honest, maybe I'm just a little inured to the events of this year? We had events like the CHAZ where groups of armed protesters declared American soil autonomous, numerous people died, and it took authorities a month to shut the protest down.
I agree... the events of 1/6 "feel" different (certainly the response has been), but I'm struggling to understand why, and that alights in the skeptic in me. Is it just that one cause is deemed righteous, and the other is deemed not?
Just as happy as most to see Donald go, but it's hard to not see this reaction formation on behalf of the left / big tech as manufactured outrage and advantage seeking.
(Genuinely conflicted -- feel free to correct me.)
I agree... the events of 1/6 "feel" different (certainly the response has been), but I'm struggling to understand why, and that alights in the skeptic in me. Is it just that one cause is deemed righteous, and the other is deemed not?
Just as happy as most to see Donald go, but it's hard to not see this reaction formation on behalf of the left / big tech as manufactured outrage and advantage seeking.
(Genuinely conflicted -- feel free to correct me.)
#1,2 and 3 in the Presidential line of succession were in the building when this happened.
How is this anything but serious?
How is this anything but serious?
And they would have all been replaced by the various states. The constitution outlines succession for this reason.
The founding of America was based on insurrection. This western liberal value of speech you speak of is in your imagination because there's no where in the US constitution that says free speech is defined as anything except violence. Any decisions we made on interpreting free speech since its inception are purely arbitrary.
It may be true that those companies don't want to platform sedition, but what if rightful sedition cannot be achieved without being provided a platform? In that case, is it then up to companies to pick and choose which sedition movements they support by virtue of allowing them on their platform?
It may be true that those companies don't want to platform sedition, but what if rightful sedition cannot be achieved without being provided a platform? In that case, is it then up to companies to pick and choose which sedition movements they support by virtue of allowing them on their platform?
Yes. If you believe in a libertarian "absolute free speech" principle you should also let private companies decide who they let on their platform. You cannot have it both ways.
In 1967 the black panthers invaded the California capitol building armed with rifles.
Over the summer of 2020 protestors laid siege to the Federal building in Portland for 100 days straight.
I can list tons of riots and violent direct actions that have happened over the years. Read about the NOW bombing in Philadelphia. Oklahoma City. Waco. The Weather Report. On and on and on.
Elevating the Jan 6th direct action, however scary, tragic, and misguided it might be, to some higher level of ‘coup’ or ‘insurrection’ isn’t rational.
It is another chapter in a long line of crazy events happening around political conflict in the US.
As such, it doesn’t, in my opinion, warrant rethink everything.
Over the summer of 2020 protestors laid siege to the Federal building in Portland for 100 days straight.
I can list tons of riots and violent direct actions that have happened over the years. Read about the NOW bombing in Philadelphia. Oklahoma City. Waco. The Weather Report. On and on and on.
Elevating the Jan 6th direct action, however scary, tragic, and misguided it might be, to some higher level of ‘coup’ or ‘insurrection’ isn’t rational.
It is another chapter in a long line of crazy events happening around political conflict in the US.
As such, it doesn’t, in my opinion, warrant rethink everything.
The events you list are similar in form but different in substance. The substantive difference is that none of the above events were supported and encouraged by a sitting president seeking to overturn his own election loss. It is a violent, physical attack, directed and abetted by the executive against the legislature to prevent it from carrying out its constitutional duty. That is an existential threat to the republic.
A lot of people here are looking at the house on fire and worrying about the water damage from putting it out.
A lot of people here are looking at the house on fire and worrying about the water damage from putting it out.
How many riots can you list where the rioters were specifically targeting a joint session of congress, with the VP in attendance, for the explicit purpose of overturning the legitimate US presidential election at the behest of the current US president?
What exactly do you think a coup attempt is?
What exactly do you think a coup attempt is?
> If the mob had managed to find and destroy the electoral certificates
You have a lot of replies so sorry if someone else said this, but this wouldn't have been much of a big deal. There are 6 copies of the electoral certificates: one sent to the VP, one sent to the SOS, 2 sent to a federal judge from the state, and 2 sent to a US archivist. I don't know which copies they were using on 1/6. Maybe the VP's? But if they destroyed them, we have others.
You have a lot of replies so sorry if someone else said this, but this wouldn't have been much of a big deal. There are 6 copies of the electoral certificates: one sent to the VP, one sent to the SOS, 2 sent to a federal judge from the state, and 2 sent to a US archivist. I don't know which copies they were using on 1/6. Maybe the VP's? But if they destroyed them, we have others.
For years these platforms have been getting rid of Islamist content. And thats a good thing. How is this any different? Is it because it is so close to home? Probably.
> I'm distressed and saddened at how many of the free speech proponents on HN are treating the events of January 6 as if it was just another protest and not an existential threat to the republic.
You know what else is an existential threat to the republic? A growing group of congresspeople who openly question fundamental American values like the right to bear arms, freedom of association, freedom of religion, a punitive justice system, and the non-redistribution of wealth. Those seditious traitors have been growing in numbers for the past decade. (See what I did there?)
All I'm really saying is you should not act like there wasn't build up to this from both sides.
This country is trying to decide whether it likes being wealthy more than it likes being free, and for the people who were never particularly wealthy in the first place, it's hardly a choice at all. What do you expect them to do, just take it? When have Americans ever done that?
You know what else is an existential threat to the republic? A growing group of congresspeople who openly question fundamental American values like the right to bear arms, freedom of association, freedom of religion, a punitive justice system, and the non-redistribution of wealth. Those seditious traitors have been growing in numbers for the past decade. (See what I did there?)
All I'm really saying is you should not act like there wasn't build up to this from both sides.
This country is trying to decide whether it likes being wealthy more than it likes being free, and for the people who were never particularly wealthy in the first place, it's hardly a choice at all. What do you expect them to do, just take it? When have Americans ever done that?
Since 2016 I've tried very hard to understand and empathize with the baffling behavior of staunch Trump supporters. Certainly not to support their politics, but to restore some sense of stability to my world view--that people are generally sympathetic. This especially hit home when hearing my wonderful parents' supporting Trump's hateful rhetoric.
I'm now starting to think that his message is in fact too dangerous to even try and rationalize. The people that follow them are feeling something I don't understand, but there's just no excuse to humor them any longer. His rhetoric is tearing us apart, and it needs to end.
For god's sake, the hate needs to end.
I'm now starting to think that his message is in fact too dangerous to even try and rationalize. The people that follow them are feeling something I don't understand, but there's just no excuse to humor them any longer. His rhetoric is tearing us apart, and it needs to end.
For god's sake, the hate needs to end.
He says things that resonate with their beliefs. America is great, America is good in the world, a strong America is a good thing, get out of foreign wars, get out of bad trade deals, bring back jobs, cut taxes. He did a lot of these things. He was completely unlike any other politician. He didn't try to waffle on both sides of every issue. He spoke his mind, in a brash, rude, blue-collar New York kind of way. He called people names. I never heard real hate in the things he said, though if you wanted to hear it, I'm sure you did.
Thanks for this. I suppose the reason people follow him is often because of his politics, not all of which I disagree with. But I think the hatred he inspires is packed into his rhetoric, and that's what I take issue with.
You may not be able to rationalize their thinking, but you do need to live in the same country together.
If your hope is that now that you've lost patience; they can be pummelled into submission, you may be going down an even darker path...
Some kind of concessions, and a demonstration that Biden is not what they feared might a good start.
Or.. you can have them banned off the internet, thrown off planes, fired from their jobs etc.. sounds like a good plan.
If your hope is that now that you've lost patience; they can be pummelled into submission, you may be going down an even darker path...
Some kind of concessions, and a demonstration that Biden is not what they feared might a good start.
Or.. you can have them banned off the internet, thrown off planes, fired from their jobs etc.. sounds like a good plan.
You may honestly be right. This division needs to soften, and that won't happen until everyone finds some common ground and feels accepted. Mocking or belittling will certainly only drive us further and further away from each other.
On the other hand, I don't think we can allow this behavior to be validated in any way. As a people, we need to be able to politically disagree with one another amicably.
This was not a protest for civil liberty, it was an attempt to undermine our current democratic process. They weren't calling for legislative reform, but to reverse the results of the election.
We count the votes and the electorates use those numbers to certify our next president. If people are unhappy with the process, it's perfectly reasonable for them to try and change it.
But lacking any evidence that the process wasn't followed, it needs to be respected, or there's not much point in having it in the first place.
On the other hand, I don't think we can allow this behavior to be validated in any way. As a people, we need to be able to politically disagree with one another amicably.
This was not a protest for civil liberty, it was an attempt to undermine our current democratic process. They weren't calling for legislative reform, but to reverse the results of the election.
We count the votes and the electorates use those numbers to certify our next president. If people are unhappy with the process, it's perfectly reasonable for them to try and change it.
But lacking any evidence that the process wasn't followed, it needs to be respected, or there's not much point in having it in the first place.
You cannot base your judgement on emotions, especially in times like this.
> His followers have now begun talking about returning with arms. Only fools would assume that these threats are idle talk or jokes.
I don't understand why it is so surprising for anyone, but this is what happens when you're trying to censor people. Banning Trump and censoring his supporters was a mistake, because it's basically like a declaration of war. If the social media waited like a month into the Biden presidency, Trump supporters would scream about the Big Tech into the ether and everything would die down eventually, but instead they decided to do it at the worst possible moment.
> His followers have now begun talking about returning with arms. Only fools would assume that these threats are idle talk or jokes.
I don't understand why it is so surprising for anyone, but this is what happens when you're trying to censor people. Banning Trump and censoring his supporters was a mistake, because it's basically like a declaration of war. If the social media waited like a month into the Biden presidency, Trump supporters would scream about the Big Tech into the ether and everything would die down eventually, but instead they decided to do it at the worst possible moment.
This doesn’t make sense to me. Is Twitter or Facebook basically a fundamental human right in the US? Is losing Twitter like losing your ability to own a firearm?
The whole “censorship” label seems quite entitled at best. These are private companies. They are under no obligation to let someone’s crazy uncle talk about hanging the VP of the US or overthrowing Congress.
Donald J Trump has every opportunity to call into Lou Dobbs, Judge Jeanine, Sean Hannity, or Fox News. He can publish directly on Brietbart. He also has the podium in the WH press room, which he doesn’t like to use, and for a decent chunk of the Presidency, had no daily press briefing.
The American liberals cry over the smallest thing, and the conservatives are equally, or perhaps worse entitled cry babies. Twitter owes American individuals absolutely nothing. They’re a business. Presumably they don’t want to get sued because we already knew people were using Twitter to plan another attack on American elected officials and Twitter did nothing.
The whole “censorship” label seems quite entitled at best. These are private companies. They are under no obligation to let someone’s crazy uncle talk about hanging the VP of the US or overthrowing Congress.
Donald J Trump has every opportunity to call into Lou Dobbs, Judge Jeanine, Sean Hannity, or Fox News. He can publish directly on Brietbart. He also has the podium in the WH press room, which he doesn’t like to use, and for a decent chunk of the Presidency, had no daily press briefing.
The American liberals cry over the smallest thing, and the conservatives are equally, or perhaps worse entitled cry babies. Twitter owes American individuals absolutely nothing. They’re a business. Presumably they don’t want to get sued because we already knew people were using Twitter to plan another attack on American elected officials and Twitter did nothing.
It's not, but in my opinion it should be. Just like in the EU for example, I believe the banks are legally required to provide you a basic bank account, regardless of what your politics are.
But ultimately, it doesn't matter in this case. It's politics.
To follow Twitter's own line of reasoning: does it make any sense to you to ban a president on the basis that he might say something that might cause violence, and at the same time don't take into consideration what the act of banning itself might cause?
But ultimately, it doesn't matter in this case. It's politics.
To follow Twitter's own line of reasoning: does it make any sense to you to ban a president on the basis that he might say something that might cause violence, and at the same time don't take into consideration what the act of banning itself might cause?
His argument wasn't a legal one, it's a practical one.
The majority of Republicans believe that their votes were stolen at the ballot box. They then got on their soap box to try to peacefully protest this outcome, which is legal, and what politics is about. They were cancelled and shut down at every avenue trying to exercise speech and protest. It doesn't matter that it's the legal right of Twitter to do this, it's that it is an extraordinarily demotivating action.
When people try the ballot box, and then the soap box, they've got one box left. Alienating and dehumanizing people is not an effective recipe for civil peace, even if it's a legal one.
The majority of Republicans believe that their votes were stolen at the ballot box. They then got on their soap box to try to peacefully protest this outcome, which is legal, and what politics is about. They were cancelled and shut down at every avenue trying to exercise speech and protest. It doesn't matter that it's the legal right of Twitter to do this, it's that it is an extraordinarily demotivating action.
When people try the ballot box, and then the soap box, they've got one box left. Alienating and dehumanizing people is not an effective recipe for civil peace, even if it's a legal one.
Please stop using HN for political battle. I had to go back almost three weeks to find a post like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25502390. When accounts start using HN for political flamewar, we ban them, regardless of which politics they're battling for. It's not what HN is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I'm not. It's just that it happens that something relatively significant regarding politics and technology happened lately, and it's top of mind for my commenting.
I was "deplatformed"--aka fired--from my tech job a couple months ago for political views. This is not a neutral issue.
Thankfully I can retire, but not all people are so lucky. What's sad is that after 24 years of coding day and night, this issue so significant I refuse to continue to work in the tech industry. I love technology, but we're at the point where this industry isn't about technology any longer.
I was "deplatformed"--aka fired--from my tech job a couple months ago for political views. This is not a neutral issue.
Thankfully I can retire, but not all people are so lucky. What's sad is that after 24 years of coding day and night, this issue so significant I refuse to continue to work in the tech industry. I love technology, but we're at the point where this industry isn't about technology any longer.
[deleted](1)
Because if there was one thing it wasn't, it wasn't an "existential threat to the republic." Hyperbole like this make it hard to talk about the rest of it reasonably. It was a protest gone off the rails, with a few bad actors, and an embarrasing lack of preparedness by the Capitol Police on that day of all days, given what has been going on all year.
That "protest gone off the rails, with a few bad actors" would have absolutely executed a member of Congress or the Vice President if given the chance. And they got unbelievably close to being able to do that. They had weapons, armor, bloodlust, restraints, and smaller organized extremist groups.
How can you not see that as an "existential threat to the republic"?
How can you not see that as an "existential threat to the republic"?
Because in trying to imagine the worst possible outcome, I still see no way Joe Biden is not sworn in on January 20. I grant you some of the people there may have been under delusions that they could stop it, but it wasn't going to happen. I mean god forbid they killed the VP or the Speaker. The rest of the Congress, the military, the states, are all going stand aside and say "OK well, nothing we can do now, it's President Trump for life!"
I suggest you read more history. Sudden violent events have, time after time, been used to increase authoritarian control. I can absolutely see a line that starts with "we need to get the Senate safe, also we're going to give emergency powers to the president." Followed by attempts to prevent the Senate from meeting, increasing police and national guard presence. Protests start nationwide. Protests lead to riots and conflict. Suddenly there's an incentive to use a little force to get everything "in order". And maybe just hold on a bit before handing over power.
Especially because the police support Trump.
Especially because the police support Trump.
> we need to get the Senate safe, also we're going to give emergency powers to the president.
There is an actor in your sentence that doesn’t exist in the US government. There is no “we” that would give emergency powers to the president against the will of the congress.
There is an actor in your sentence that doesn’t exist in the US government. There is no “we” that would give emergency powers to the president against the will of the congress.
What if the violence ends in everyone who opposes the President losing their lives? They get rid of all Democrats in Congress, and Republicans vote to give Trump emergency powers.
Can’t happen. They wouldn’t be able to achieve quorum to even have the vote. Would need to wait until states appoint replacement representatives.
Not true at all. First and foremost, "the whole number of the House has long been viewed as the number of Members elected, sworn, and living". So if they murdered all of the Democrats the remaining Republicans would have enough members to maintain a quorum.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/98-988
But there are other ways to get around this as well. Specifically, read sections:
- Quorum in the Case of Catastrophic Circumstances
- Voting and Quorum Procedures in the House of Representatives
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/98-988
But there are other ways to get around this as well. Specifically, read sections:
- Quorum in the Case of Catastrophic Circumstances
- Voting and Quorum Procedures in the House of Representatives
All Dems murdered would be catastrophic circumstances and would require the 72 hour window with the failure to reach quorum report. That’s plenty of time for states to re-appoint all of the senators and prevent the take over of the upper house.
Who is the "we" that is giving him more powers? Trump is viscerally hated by the Speaker (2nd in line) and most of the House (they already impeached him once) and a significant portion of the Senate. No way he's getting any emergency powers, if the Constitution would even allow it.
For a more competent autocrat-hopeful, the military. Trump's biggest mistake (and our biggest boon in such a situation) is that he spent 4 years making enemies of the top brass. You don't become a dictator when the heads of the military hate you.
It's not just about whether Biden becomes President on the 20th. Because there's not really any way they could have stopped that. It's about how much further that could have escalated extremism and violence.
What was your opinion on the BLM protests outside of the White House ?
I'm not sure why you ask, but this seems like a potential bad faith attempt at whataboutism. I don't support any form of rioting. I also don't think what happened outside of the White House was in any way a riot. Certainly not in any way comparable to what happened this week at the Capitol.
I ask because it makes you think and hopefully prevent overreaction. Banning apps because of extremists and poor police presence is stupid. I think these people should have been treated the same as the second day of protest where Capitol police were stationed outside after the church was set on fire. There was a lot more time to plan for these event as it was less spontaneous and had many hundreds of thousands planning attendance. I think not having a bigger police presence was pathetic and it was likely political.
Okay, putting the ideals of the two events aside, the fact is the police (and national guard) presence was great enough during the BLM protest to make breaching the perimeter essentially impossible, as opposed to the much lighter presence on the 6th.
And Trump got absolutely pilloried for having that troop presence at the time.
Because it was a photo op, not a constitutional duty of Congress.
I’m not talking about the photo op, I’m talking about the police presence trying to contain the violent mob earlier in the day.
Exactly and it’s unacceptable that it wasn’t. Who is to blame?
Everyone who is involved in this coup should be arrested immediately
Why isn't Trump arrested yet? since many claims he is the leader of the coup.
Even AOC calls for resignation for supporting a coup attempt. Huh?
In many countries, It's a death sentence (or max jail time) if one tries to overthrow a government.
In US, the punishment is resignation and banned from social media and AWS?
Yeah, some hyperbole is involved here.
Why isn't Trump arrested yet? since many claims he is the leader of the coup.
Even AOC calls for resignation for supporting a coup attempt. Huh?
In many countries, It's a death sentence (or max jail time) if one tries to overthrow a government.
In US, the punishment is resignation and banned from social media and AWS?
Yeah, some hyperbole is involved here.
I'm old enough to remember when a Bernie Sanders supporter shot a Republican congressman at a baseball practice. Is that an existential threat to the republic that should be laid at the feet of Bernie supporters?
You can't see the difference between a single lone wolf attack at a baseball game, and an entire mob instigated by the President of the United States, at the US Capitol? Taking place while Congress counted the votes of that President's political opponent?
Most of the people at the Capitol were there for peaceful protest.
Trump did not tell them to kill politicians. His rhetoric was extreme, but arguably so is Bernie's.
Trump did not tell them to kill politicians. His rhetoric was extreme, but arguably so is Bernie's.
[deleted]
> Most of the people at the Capitol were there for peaceful protest.
Okay, but there were many there that explicitly wanted violence, came prepared for it, and used the mob as cover.
> Trump did not tell them to kill politicians
Trump doesn't have to explicitly say "kill these politicians" to make the implication perfectly clear. He repeatedly told them he needed them to "fight" for him.
> His rhetoric was extreme, but arguably so is Bernie's
Bernie never incited a mob to storm the Capitol Building, while Congress ratified the votes for his political opponent.
Okay, but there were many there that explicitly wanted violence, came prepared for it, and used the mob as cover.
> Trump did not tell them to kill politicians
Trump doesn't have to explicitly say "kill these politicians" to make the implication perfectly clear. He repeatedly told them he needed them to "fight" for him.
> His rhetoric was extreme, but arguably so is Bernie's
Bernie never incited a mob to storm the Capitol Building, while Congress ratified the votes for his political opponent.
> Bernie never incited a mob to storm the Capitol Building, while Congress ratified the votes for his political opponent.
His supporters most certainly include a fringe of people prepared for violence. I've even seen video evidence of such people working for his presidential election campaign.
Bernie Sanders also endorsed the (thankfully failed) Portland mayoral candidate who was an open Antifa supporter and worshiper of Stalin and Mao.
The question, for any political movement that has violent fringe, to what extent can the responsibility for that violent fringe be set at the feet of either the members of the movement or the politicians who lead it?
Bernie and his followers have never been broadly considered responsible for his radicals, despite his extreme rhetoric.
All summer long we had "mostly peaceful" BLM protests that included a significant minority of violent radicals (both BLM and Antifa) and yet no one took responsibility. In many cases people weren't even prosecuted.
Consider this: on election day, D.C. was boarded up, and it wasn't in preparation for rioting Trump supporters. These are people who generally speaking don't want to over through the existing order. They just want to see the existing order working.
His supporters most certainly include a fringe of people prepared for violence. I've even seen video evidence of such people working for his presidential election campaign.
Bernie Sanders also endorsed the (thankfully failed) Portland mayoral candidate who was an open Antifa supporter and worshiper of Stalin and Mao.
The question, for any political movement that has violent fringe, to what extent can the responsibility for that violent fringe be set at the feet of either the members of the movement or the politicians who lead it?
Bernie and his followers have never been broadly considered responsible for his radicals, despite his extreme rhetoric.
All summer long we had "mostly peaceful" BLM protests that included a significant minority of violent radicals (both BLM and Antifa) and yet no one took responsibility. In many cases people weren't even prosecuted.
Consider this: on election day, D.C. was boarded up, and it wasn't in preparation for rioting Trump supporters. These are people who generally speaking don't want to over through the existing order. They just want to see the existing order working.
There's a huge difference between a lone actor and the large amount of people who went into the capitol on the 6th.
Most of the people there (including many who entered the building) were clearly not intending or prepared for violence.
So? Many of them were. And the mob provided them cover.
Honest question: do you feel the same about the riots over the past summer?
This is now attempt number 4 in this thread to get me on this point. This is not an "honest question", it's a gotcha attempt.
I am against rioting. Full stop.
I am against rioting. Full stop.
> I am against rioting. Full stop.
Great, so am I! But I have been hearing people (both here and from the very politicians threatened on the 6th) excusing and downplaying the violent rioting that occurred over the summer.
This "gotcha" is an attempt to see whether one is dealing with someone that has a consistent set of principles.
Great, so am I! But I have been hearing people (both here and from the very politicians threatened on the 6th) excusing and downplaying the violent rioting that occurred over the summer.
This "gotcha" is an attempt to see whether one is dealing with someone that has a consistent set of principles.
Were they a part of a mob swarming the baseball practice? If so, then yes, they were all complicit for not stopping an escalation of violence. If not, then no, it was a single actor. It's not that hard to apply a tiny amount of critical thinking to avoid false equivalency.
Bernie didn't tell him to do what he did, and he was just one guy. This was a large mob, and Trump had just instructed it to do 90% of what it did. The possibility that violence could occur was clear. That's not at all a valid comparison.
drieddust(1)
And you attest that malatov-throwing, firework shooting, armed, arsonist actors in Summer 2020 wouldn't do the same?
A huge protest with high emotions does mob justice. No surprises there.
A huge protest with high emotions does mob justice. No surprises there.
Nope, because they weren't interfering with the ratification of a Presidential election. It's one thing to burn out a Target and another to ransack The Capitol while it is in session doing critical constitutional duties.
It's better for people aggrieved by the system to loot and burn down community businesses than government buildings?
That is a very hot take.
That is a very hot take.
Yes, when that government building is the Capitol. It's more about the people inside the building than the building itself.
And not just the Capitol, but the Capitol while the entirety of Congress is in session counting the votes for the incoming President.
It's one thing if this had happened on a random Wednesday, but the timing is what makes it so disturbing.
It's straight out of a wannabe dictator's playbook. The fact that it was incompetent and disorganized doesn't change that.
It's one thing if this had happened on a random Wednesday, but the timing is what makes it so disturbing.
It's straight out of a wannabe dictator's playbook. The fact that it was incompetent and disorganized doesn't change that.
You're the third person who's responded to my comment with a whataboutism for the BLM protests, something I made zero mention of.
> How can you not see that as an "existential threat to the republic"?
I'm pretty high up the spectrum of taking the riot seriously rather than "a protest gone bad", but how would this extreme worst case be "an existential threat to the republic"? The republic is explicitly designed to rout around the death (incl assassination) of the President, let alone more minor political figures. Was Gabbie Giffords' tragic attack an existential threat to the republic?
I'm a hardliner on political violence and want to see the book thrown at everyone who stormed the Capitol, but that's down to the need to set a Schelling fence; it's not even close to "existential".
I'm pretty high up the spectrum of taking the riot seriously rather than "a protest gone bad", but how would this extreme worst case be "an existential threat to the republic"? The republic is explicitly designed to rout around the death (incl assassination) of the President, let alone more minor political figures. Was Gabbie Giffords' tragic attack an existential threat to the republic?
I'm a hardliner on political violence and want to see the book thrown at everyone who stormed the Capitol, but that's down to the need to set a Schelling fence; it's not even close to "existential".
> Was Gabbie Giffords' tragic attack an existential threat to the republic?
Somebody also compared this to the Scalise shooting. Neither are comparable. This was a mob executing the whim of the sitting President, trying to prevent the legal counting of the votes of the incoming President. Not to mention the symbolic nature of it taking place at the US Capitol, while the entirety of Congress was in session. This is not comparable to lone wolf attacks against singular targets.
I don't think it would have been actually republic ending -- but it sure would have set us on an extremely dangerous path towards increasing levels of extremism, violence.
Somebody also compared this to the Scalise shooting. Neither are comparable. This was a mob executing the whim of the sitting President, trying to prevent the legal counting of the votes of the incoming President. Not to mention the symbolic nature of it taking place at the US Capitol, while the entirety of Congress was in session. This is not comparable to lone wolf attacks against singular targets.
I don't think it would have been actually republic ending -- but it sure would have set us on an extremely dangerous path towards increasing levels of extremism, violence.
> How can you not see that as an "existential threat to the republic"?
Because it’s not. Our representatives are not the republic. There isn’t some clause that dissolves government if enough representatives die.
The civil war in which states receded was an existential threat. A bunch of dead Congress members is horrific terrorism but it’s nowhere near an existential crisis. The beauty of our structure is that individuals do not matter in the gran scheme of things.
Because it’s not. Our representatives are not the republic. There isn’t some clause that dissolves government if enough representatives die.
The civil war in which states receded was an existential threat. A bunch of dead Congress members is horrific terrorism but it’s nowhere near an existential crisis. The beauty of our structure is that individuals do not matter in the gran scheme of things.
This has been brought up elsewhere in the thread, but it's not about the individuals dying. It's about the potential for escalating violence and power grabs that come in its wake.
A MAGA mob that managed to kill Senators would likely cause protests and riots to erupt across the country. Likely worse than we saw last summer. Then you have a major danger of counter protesting, and escalating violence between the groups. Then there's the danger of the possible ways in which the government reacts. We already saw Trump last summer threatening to deploy military on domestic soil. The dominos can continue to fall from there, as violence continues, and power consolidates.
Would that have definitely happened, and would that have definitely threatened to end the republic? I don't know. But it's a threat, nonetheless.
This comment explains it better than me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25711602
A MAGA mob that managed to kill Senators would likely cause protests and riots to erupt across the country. Likely worse than we saw last summer. Then you have a major danger of counter protesting, and escalating violence between the groups. Then there's the danger of the possible ways in which the government reacts. We already saw Trump last summer threatening to deploy military on domestic soil. The dominos can continue to fall from there, as violence continues, and power consolidates.
Would that have definitely happened, and would that have definitely threatened to end the republic? I don't know. But it's a threat, nonetheless.
This comment explains it better than me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25711602
But that’s all fantasy. The country has the national guard for protests in cities which frequently gets deployed and would be used in these scenarios as well. There is no special power grab that can happen legally so he would need a bunch of life long military generals to agree to a coup, in which case the congress protester attack is irrelevant anyway.
> They had weapons
Are we talking about guns? I didn't see any report that any of these people had a single gun. Yes you can qualify a broom stolen from the janitors cabin as a weapon, but give me a break...
> armor
Wearing a pair of camouflage pants and a bicyle helmet does not qualify as armor
> bloodlust
maybe
Are we talking about guns? I didn't see any report that any of these people had a single gun. Yes you can qualify a broom stolen from the janitors cabin as a weapon, but give me a break...
> armor
Wearing a pair of camouflage pants and a bicyle helmet does not qualify as armor
> bloodlust
maybe
> I didn't see any report that any of these people had a single gun.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/us-capitol-riots... mentions, among other things, multiple charges for carrying guns on capitol grounds. + a bunch of illegal gun stuff in the surrounding area.
> Wearing a pair of camouflage pants and a bicyle helmet does not qualify as armor
Above article mentions at least one case where the police charge explicitly mentions a bulletproof vest, and on various photos you can see "tactical helmets" (which could be unarmored, true) and plate carriers
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/us-capitol-riots... mentions, among other things, multiple charges for carrying guns on capitol grounds. + a bunch of illegal gun stuff in the surrounding area.
> Wearing a pair of camouflage pants and a bicyle helmet does not qualify as armor
Above article mentions at least one case where the police charge explicitly mentions a bulletproof vest, and on various photos you can see "tactical helmets" (which could be unarmored, true) and plate carriers
I sincerely hope you are correct, but it's difficult to know the following:
1. just how many citizens were sympathetic to the rioters as they saw those events on unfolding on their screens
2. how their collective behavior will change as a result
I wouldn't say that "existential threat" is hyperbole, I'd say that its accuracy depends on the answer to the above questions.
I wasn't worried about the immediate collapse of the America at the hands of the Capitol mob.
1. just how many citizens were sympathetic to the rioters as they saw those events on unfolding on their screens
2. how their collective behavior will change as a result
I wouldn't say that "existential threat" is hyperbole, I'd say that its accuracy depends on the answer to the above questions.
I wasn't worried about the immediate collapse of the America at the hands of the Capitol mob.
Not an answer to your question, but a few interesting data points nonetheless:
"From @YouGov poll: among Republican voters, 45% approve of the storming of Capitol, 30% think the perpetrators are 'patriots', 52% think Biden is at least partly to blame for it, and 85% think it would be inappropriate to remove Trump from office after this. This is not a fringe." https://twitter.com/SMerler/status/1347089854958596098?s=20
"From @YouGov poll: among Republican voters, 45% approve of the storming of Capitol, 30% think the perpetrators are 'patriots', 52% think Biden is at least partly to blame for it, and 85% think it would be inappropriate to remove Trump from office after this. This is not a fringe." https://twitter.com/SMerler/status/1347089854958596098?s=20
Fwiw, a more recent PBS/Marist poll puts Republican support for the attack at 18%.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/news/53345...
Full poll (pdf): http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/PBS-...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/news/53345...
Full poll (pdf): http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/PBS-...
Damn, those are depressing numbers...
>It was a protest gone off the rails, with a few bad actors, and an embarrasing lack of preparedness by the Capitol Police on that day of all days, given what has been going on all year.
Those "few bad actors" had weapons and tried to interrupt the certification of the new president. They may be idiots because of their poor planning but their intent was obvious to anyone who hasn't drank the kool-aid.
Those "few bad actors" had weapons and tried to interrupt the certification of the new president. They may be idiots because of their poor planning but their intent was obvious to anyone who hasn't drank the kool-aid.
I don't think anyone (certainly not me) is denying some intent of at least a core of instigators to create a disruption, at minimum. They should be identified, charged with their crimes, and stand trial.
And previously a few bad actors attempted to assassinate a number of GOP representatives, yet we didn't see a comparable reaction.
I also seem to recall there were people staging faked but realistic looking beheadings of Trump which was celebrated as free speech.
I also seem to recall there were people staging faked but realistic looking beheadings of Trump which was celebrated as free speech.
I really find it fascinating how the US media finds the exception and pretends it's the norm. It's something out of psy-ops.
ONE demonstrator had zip ties, therefore "they had zip ties".
Sure, many were armed and who fired the sole single lethal shot that day? Law enforcement. How is that for peaceful?
The "four people died" narrative is also very telling. One demonstrator was shot by police. One law enforcement officer died of injuries - although details have been very vague. The other two deaths? One heart attack and one unrelated condition. At this point I expect the US media to attribute every single death in DC on that day to these demonstrations just so they can pretend it was an extremely lethal event.
The people "stormed the Capitol" and what did they do once they had it? They took selfies and then left peacefully. That's not a coup or an insurrection, that's a disorganized demonstration that went too far because Capitol police could apparently not keep doors closed.
But I understand. The US media has been priming people for 5 years for this. They've been running influence campaigns and promoting violence the minute Trump won. They spent 3 years talking about Russian collusion and then didn't say a thing when it was proven false. Could you imagine if the Russian collusion narrative had been treated the same way the electoral fraud narrative has been treated?
ONE demonstrator had zip ties, therefore "they had zip ties".
Sure, many were armed and who fired the sole single lethal shot that day? Law enforcement. How is that for peaceful?
The "four people died" narrative is also very telling. One demonstrator was shot by police. One law enforcement officer died of injuries - although details have been very vague. The other two deaths? One heart attack and one unrelated condition. At this point I expect the US media to attribute every single death in DC on that day to these demonstrations just so they can pretend it was an extremely lethal event.
The people "stormed the Capitol" and what did they do once they had it? They took selfies and then left peacefully. That's not a coup or an insurrection, that's a disorganized demonstration that went too far because Capitol police could apparently not keep doors closed.
But I understand. The US media has been priming people for 5 years for this. They've been running influence campaigns and promoting violence the minute Trump won. They spent 3 years talking about Russian collusion and then didn't say a thing when it was proven false. Could you imagine if the Russian collusion narrative had been treated the same way the electoral fraud narrative has been treated?
The guy who had a heart attack died because the weapon he was carrying intending to use against a congressman went off and killed himself instead.
Intending to use against a congressman ? Did he tell that much to you ?
I also love making threats on social media then flying across the country and taking weapons into buildings where they’re not allowed so I can definitely not use them for anything.
I think there’s a legitimate question as to whether you’re just making this up on the spot because you’re angry, or if there’s any actual evidence of this that you’d care to share.
Do I look angry? I am always a perfectly rational internet forum poster.
https://www.al.com/news/2021/01/alabama-man-1-of-4-people-wh...
Other reports from the field indicate he died by “tasing himself in the balls” while “stealing a portrait of Tip O’Neill”, which could probably be verified with a livestream if you want to watch someone die, which I don’t.
https://www.al.com/news/2021/01/alabama-man-1-of-4-people-wh...
Other reports from the field indicate he died by “tasing himself in the balls” while “stealing a portrait of Tip O’Neill”, which could probably be verified with a livestream if you want to watch someone die, which I don’t.
So.... nothing in that link says anything about the guy who had a heart attack being shot.
The rest of your comment seems to be rambling nonsense.
The rest of your comment seems to be rambling nonsense.
Your epistemological standards and justifications are much different than mine, and really speak to the epistemological challenge we humans face in an age with an increasing volume of information.
The vast majority of the people there were LARPers who didn't intend any violence.
How does that change the fact that there were multiple armed groups and individuals, many of whom had very clear intentions. Given the chance, they would have absolutely taken hostages, or killed a Senator or the Vice President. And they were able to literally walk right into the Capitol, almost completely unimpeded.
Why does the fact that the majority of them were LARPing change that fact?
How does that change the fact that there were multiple armed groups and individuals, many of whom had very clear intentions. Given the chance, they would have absolutely taken hostages, or killed a Senator or the Vice President. And they were able to literally walk right into the Capitol, almost completely unimpeded.
Why does the fact that the majority of them were LARPing change that fact?
> How does that change the fact that there were multiple armed groups and individuals,
I have heard this statement thrown, but have not seen any good photos, videos or any source material proving it. I suspect this is largely because firearms are banned within the Capitol and you would be insta-arrested if you tried. The Capitol is not an open carry or even a concealed carry area, and as we saw from the one death at the hands of law enforcement, they are not shy about using lethal force on even unarmed individuals when you cross certain lines.
I am also extrapolating from the arrest data that there were clearly almost no armed individuals at all. There have been two firearm arrests. That's two out of hundreds of thousands of individuals and in both cases the individuals had their firearms in their vehicles, not on their person - so they were most definitely not "armed groups and individuals".
See: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/politics/capitol-arres...
I have heard this statement thrown, but have not seen any good photos, videos or any source material proving it. I suspect this is largely because firearms are banned within the Capitol and you would be insta-arrested if you tried. The Capitol is not an open carry or even a concealed carry area, and as we saw from the one death at the hands of law enforcement, they are not shy about using lethal force on even unarmed individuals when you cross certain lines.
I am also extrapolating from the arrest data that there were clearly almost no armed individuals at all. There have been two firearm arrests. That's two out of hundreds of thousands of individuals and in both cases the individuals had their firearms in their vehicles, not on their person - so they were most definitely not "armed groups and individuals".
See: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/politics/capitol-arres...
In a pragmatic way, you are right. This could have ended up much worse than it did. But let's not fool ourselves, the intent of these people was to intimidate officials into disrupting a peaceful transition of power.
They didn't do so because of any actual evidence that the transition was fraudulent, but out of loyalty to one person and a cult of personality. It all just reeks of dictatorship-like behavior to me.
They didn't do so because of any actual evidence that the transition was fraudulent, but out of loyalty to one person and a cult of personality. It all just reeks of dictatorship-like behavior to me.
I disagree largely because you're extrapolating the exception to be the rule. There were hundreds of thousands of people there and 99% of them never even entered the Capitol buildings.
I think the most telling part of intent is coming from the arrest data. There have been less than a handful of arrests due to firearms. Two of them were alarming (one had mason jar IEDs, one was making assassination threats at Pelosi). I am sure we will get more of what I would agree with you were "people with an intent to intimidate officials", but they are going to make up less than 99.5% of the hundreds of thousands of people that were there to demonstrate. The bulk of arrests have been curfew related - no surprises there.
I think it helps to put ourselves in the mindset of the people there, regardless of what side you're on. These people were upset that while the "fraud" of 2016 (the Russian collusion narrative) was thoroughly investigated and proven to be false after 3.5 years of dragging the President through the mud, the 2020 "fraud" allegation feels like it's being completely ignored.
And look I do not think there was enough fraud to change the results (I assume that in any election with no voter ID there will be some fraud, period). What I think is problematic is when instead of investigating allegations to appease 70 MM of your constituents, you instead say "no investigation and if you even ask about this you must be de-platformed, banned from the internet, and are probably a terrorist". That response is extremely dictatorial and not the sign of someone acting with good intentions. That's what scares me much more than anything than the fraction of a percent of demonstrators did.
I think the most telling part of intent is coming from the arrest data. There have been less than a handful of arrests due to firearms. Two of them were alarming (one had mason jar IEDs, one was making assassination threats at Pelosi). I am sure we will get more of what I would agree with you were "people with an intent to intimidate officials", but they are going to make up less than 99.5% of the hundreds of thousands of people that were there to demonstrate. The bulk of arrests have been curfew related - no surprises there.
I think it helps to put ourselves in the mindset of the people there, regardless of what side you're on. These people were upset that while the "fraud" of 2016 (the Russian collusion narrative) was thoroughly investigated and proven to be false after 3.5 years of dragging the President through the mud, the 2020 "fraud" allegation feels like it's being completely ignored.
And look I do not think there was enough fraud to change the results (I assume that in any election with no voter ID there will be some fraud, period). What I think is problematic is when instead of investigating allegations to appease 70 MM of your constituents, you instead say "no investigation and if you even ask about this you must be de-platformed, banned from the internet, and are probably a terrorist". That response is extremely dictatorial and not the sign of someone acting with good intentions. That's what scares me much more than anything than the fraction of a percent of demonstrators did.
I think I see what you're saying, but it seems like we are focusing on two different aspects of the event. I'm perfectly comfortable with people taking issue and protesting the de-platforming. I personally think it was the right move, but I fully support that others be able to think differently and try to affect change.
But the ban is not dictatorial. It is fully within these private companies' rights to refuse service to the president. And most importantly, this is not the government suppressing the people, it's the people suppressing the government. I can hardly imagine a stronger example of true liberty. Surely in actual dictatorship that would never be allowed to happen.
What these corporations are saying is not "no investigation and you're banned". They're saying they believe Trump purposefully incited people to take action so he could retain power despite the results of the election.
But the ban is not dictatorial. It is fully within these private companies' rights to refuse service to the president. And most importantly, this is not the government suppressing the people, it's the people suppressing the government. I can hardly imagine a stronger example of true liberty. Surely in actual dictatorship that would never be allowed to happen.
What these corporations are saying is not "no investigation and you're banned". They're saying they believe Trump purposefully incited people to take action so he could retain power despite the results of the election.
Yeah, this is honestly the best response to the above comment. It was an attempt to disrupt the peaceful transition of power, at the behest of a wannabe autocrat, fueled by lies and conspiracy theories. The fact that it was incompetent and disorganized, and that not everyone there shared that goal, doesn't change anything.
I'm genuinely curious, where do you get your news?
What are your information filters that can allow you to believe something like Russian collusion not only was "proved false" but didn't even happen?
Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos, Richard Pinedo, Alex van der Zwaan, and Konstantin Kilimnik were all indicted, most convicted and imprisoned due to their role in the Trump campaign colluding with Russian agents. What do you think happened to these people?
I have to assume you arguing entirely in bad faith. "Couldn't keep the doors closed"? There were hundreds of people shoving to get in, screaming racial slurs at black police officers and calling them traitors saying they deserved to be executed for not arresting the liberal politicians.
Also, that officer who died who you kind of just dance around? The mob ripped a fire extinguisher off the wall and beat his head in.
What are your information filters that can allow you to believe something like Russian collusion not only was "proved false" but didn't even happen?
Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos, Richard Pinedo, Alex van der Zwaan, and Konstantin Kilimnik were all indicted, most convicted and imprisoned due to their role in the Trump campaign colluding with Russian agents. What do you think happened to these people?
I have to assume you arguing entirely in bad faith. "Couldn't keep the doors closed"? There were hundreds of people shoving to get in, screaming racial slurs at black police officers and calling them traitors saying they deserved to be executed for not arresting the liberal politicians.
Also, that officer who died who you kind of just dance around? The mob ripped a fire extinguisher off the wall and beat his head in.
And what do you think would have happened to Minneapolis or the Portland courthouse or the White House during the summer riots if there had not been a more competent security response? What happened at the Capitol was serious. So was what happened over the summer. But over the summer I heard nothing by "mostly peaceful protests" as literally billions of dollars of damage was caused and numerous deaths were racked up. Captiol protesters break some windows and I hear nothing but "violent rioting insurrectionists".
Back during the summer, Trump being secured in a shelter because of the riot security risk was LAUGHED at by the left. They accused him of being a coward for being taken to a bunker due to the risk of BLM protesters who burned a church across from the White House. Where's the same media laughing at the Congressional representatives fleeing from the people they're supposed to represent?
Back during the summer, Trump being secured in a shelter because of the riot security risk was LAUGHED at by the left. They accused him of being a coward for being taken to a bunker due to the risk of BLM protesters who burned a church across from the White House. Where's the same media laughing at the Congressional representatives fleeing from the people they're supposed to represent?
Trump was never in danger.
Broke some windows? They beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. They entered congress with zip ties, semi-automatic weapons, and placed pipe bombs at the DNC & RNC.
kyle_martin1(1)
Censoring a president is far greater a threat to the republic than some silly protest. People like you exploiting a silly pathetic protest to justify censorship is the threat to the republic. I'd rather have the protests than censorship by tech companies.
It is not for a bunch of unelected tech elites to decide whether our elected leaders speak. That's not their job. Once we hand over that power to a bunch of tech elites, then we have the end of the republic.
Nobody voted for Amazon, Apple, Google to be our hall monitors.
If there is a "threat to the republic", then it's the job of the political leaders and law enforcement to deal with it. Not Tim Cook, not Zuckerburg and certainly not the idiots at CNN, foxnews or other media companies.
The collusion between tech and news industry is the greatest threat to the republic. Not some pathetic protest that amounted to nothing.
Have you ever bothered to ask who elected the tech industry to be our masters? Do you really want a bunch of unelected tech elite controlling our lives? Do you want these people to be lords over our elected leaders?
It is not for a bunch of unelected tech elites to decide whether our elected leaders speak. That's not their job. Once we hand over that power to a bunch of tech elites, then we have the end of the republic.
Nobody voted for Amazon, Apple, Google to be our hall monitors.
If there is a "threat to the republic", then it's the job of the political leaders and law enforcement to deal with it. Not Tim Cook, not Zuckerburg and certainly not the idiots at CNN, foxnews or other media companies.
The collusion between tech and news industry is the greatest threat to the republic. Not some pathetic protest that amounted to nothing.
Have you ever bothered to ask who elected the tech industry to be our masters? Do you really want a bunch of unelected tech elite controlling our lives? Do you want these people to be lords over our elected leaders?
drieddust(2)
one2know(4)
” The western liberal value of free speech has never extended to incitement of violence. My assumption is that the leaders of Apple, Google, and Amazon don't want to provide a platform for sedition.”
This illogical lie get spammed here on every single news discussion about this event, yet no one has still answered why did those platforms allow leftwing/blm terrorists and other violent organizations spread their hate for years?
”Western liberal values” seem to only apply when it doesn’t harm the agenda and interests of the people who vote for the ”right” party.
This illogical lie get spammed here on every single news discussion about this event, yet no one has still answered why did those platforms allow leftwing/blm terrorists and other violent organizations spread their hate for years?
”Western liberal values” seem to only apply when it doesn’t harm the agenda and interests of the people who vote for the ”right” party.
There haven’t been left-wing terrorists in the US since the Weather Underground. (Who were so ineffectual most of them blew themselves up and we let the rest become obscure college professors.)
If you think there’s been any in the last few decades you should turn off your TV since it’s lying to you.
If you think there’s been any in the last few decades you should turn off your TV since it’s lying to you.
Do you believe there have been any right wing terrorists in the US in the last few decades?
Yes, there were some yesterday.
Interpreting "last few decades" as within the last 30 years, Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph make the cut.
- 1995 Murrah Federal Building in OK
- 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing
Post 2001, Wikipedia has quite a list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#Post-2001
I could see arguing some of these are crimes committed by right-wing groups as opposed to terrorist acts, but others clearly are terrorism.
- 1995 Murrah Federal Building in OK
- 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing
Post 2001, Wikipedia has quite a list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#Post-2001
I could see arguing some of these are crimes committed by right-wing groups as opposed to terrorist acts, but others clearly are terrorism.
January 6 was a "mostly peaceful" protest.
How many "mostly peaceful" protests end up with five dead?
Where were you this past summer? "Mostly peaceful" was the way the corporate press described the summer riots that left dozens dead and did billions of dollars in property damage.
And the rioters were bailed out by politicians including the incoming VP.
And the rioters were bailed out by politicians including the incoming VP.
That doesn't really answer my question.
It actually does.
I mean, I didn't give you a specific number of such "mostly peaceful" protests, and they didn't necessarily result in exactly 5 deaths, but it is clear that the protest on the 6th was not the only such protest to result in people dying even with the past year.
I mean, I didn't give you a specific number of such "mostly peaceful" protests, and they didn't necessarily result in exactly 5 deaths, but it is clear that the protest on the 6th was not the only such protest to result in people dying even with the past year.
> free speech proponents on HN are treating the events of January 6 as if it was just another protest and not an existential threat to the republic.
Let me tell you a little story:
On February 27, 1933 communist Marinus van der Lubbe set fire to the Reichstag, the home of the German parliament. He and four communist leaders were arrested.
The event supported the earlier claims of the National Socialist Workers Party, that Germany was on the verge of a communist revolution and only majority by them could stop it.
At the urging of Chancellor Adolf Hitler, President Paul von Hidenburg immediately issued the Reichstag Fire Decree, suspending civil liberties such as freedom speech, freedom of the press, public assembly, and the secrecy of the post and telephone.
The government arrested large numbers of communists, including members of parliament.
In their absence, the Nazis and their allies, the Germany National People's Party, achieved a majority in the legislature. Exactly one month after the Reichstag fire, they passed the Enabling Act to help them against the seditious communists by giving the Chancellor the power to pass laws without parliamentary approval.
Soon after, President Hindenburg died and the President's office was merged with that of the Chancellor Hitler, making Hitler the head of state and the executive, or "Führer und Reichskanzler."
But......the important thing is that they successfully addressed the insurrectionists' attack on the Capitol!
Let me tell you a little story:
On February 27, 1933 communist Marinus van der Lubbe set fire to the Reichstag, the home of the German parliament. He and four communist leaders were arrested.
The event supported the earlier claims of the National Socialist Workers Party, that Germany was on the verge of a communist revolution and only majority by them could stop it.
At the urging of Chancellor Adolf Hitler, President Paul von Hidenburg immediately issued the Reichstag Fire Decree, suspending civil liberties such as freedom speech, freedom of the press, public assembly, and the secrecy of the post and telephone.
The government arrested large numbers of communists, including members of parliament.
In their absence, the Nazis and their allies, the Germany National People's Party, achieved a majority in the legislature. Exactly one month after the Reichstag fire, they passed the Enabling Act to help them against the seditious communists by giving the Chancellor the power to pass laws without parliamentary approval.
Soon after, President Hindenburg died and the President's office was merged with that of the Chancellor Hitler, making Hitler the head of state and the executive, or "Führer und Reichskanzler."
But......the important thing is that they successfully addressed the insurrectionists' attack on the Capitol!
Regardless of your political persuasion, you should be concerned about this.
Massive multinational corporations having this much power over our speech is not healthy.
If they can do this to a sitting President of the US, they can do it to every single one of us.
Massive multinational corporations having this much power over our speech is not healthy.
If they can do this to a sitting President of the US, they can do it to every single one of us.
It's hard to read any of these arguments in good-faith.
A single person has enough power to incite a mob that threatens the life of our government officials. That seems like "too much power" to me. A mob consisting of .001% of the US population threatening our cabinet seems like "too much power" to me.
Until we have a better way to figure out what causes that sort of conspiracy-theory mania, deplatforming is a million times better than insurrection.
A single person has enough power to incite a mob that threatens the life of our government officials. That seems like "too much power" to me. A mob consisting of .001% of the US population threatening our cabinet seems like "too much power" to me.
Until we have a better way to figure out what causes that sort of conspiracy-theory mania, deplatforming is a million times better than insurrection.
Why is it hard to take it in good-faith? Regardless of one's political persuasion it should be chilling to anyone, especially the hacker types, to see how easily the tech companies can snuff voices out of existence. Who elected them? Whose interests do they serve? They should not have such power. We need real solutions to the speech problem and I fear that instead this knee jerk, performant stuff is going to backfire horribly.
Yeah but as hacker types people here should be looking at the fundamentals of the problem. I don't support free speech just for the sake of it. It serves a purpose to make society better off as a whole. The market place of ideas.
We well now know, and you can see it play out since the internet showed up - that content The ideas that win out are the ones best designed to encroach on the hind brain and avoiding the parts that analyze using reason.
Cat pics out perform everything.
Images beat long form arguments.
Machiavellian emotional constructs co-opt human brains, and a lawyer level eye for rhetoric, or blanket, unhelpful cynicism is needed to protect you.
If you actually want that market place to work, now we know that we have to act on speech that destroys reason.
We well now know, and you can see it play out since the internet showed up - that content The ideas that win out are the ones best designed to encroach on the hind brain and avoiding the parts that analyze using reason.
Cat pics out perform everything.
Images beat long form arguments.
Machiavellian emotional constructs co-opt human brains, and a lawyer level eye for rhetoric, or blanket, unhelpful cynicism is needed to protect you.
If you actually want that market place to work, now we know that we have to act on speech that destroys reason.
The problem is who arbitrates which speech is good. If you look back at history there are many examples of speech that was suppressed because it was considered blasphemous or immoral only to later become orthodoxy. I think we are better off focusing our efforts on building back trust in journalism and teaching and empowering people to be skeptical and good critical thinkers. I do not think repression is going to work.
I don't think any future generations would look back at conspiring to hang lawmakers out in public as some orthodoxy that we were wrong to see as immoral.
I too thought the same, but because I like empirics, I went out and tested it.
Repression works.
You make a few assumptions here, which are important to examine.
First, it was centralized power of the church, which was fighting facts that were not in congruences with their beliefs. However, today the positions are reversed, it is faith in unreal outcomes that is asking for credibility at the same level as facts.
The people who stormed America's highest houses were there because they believed that an election wasn't fair. Nothing will convince them otherwise, no matter what the evidence.
This is the essence of faith, and exactly why free speech exists. To allow human beings to be governed by reason over unreason or emotion.
Secondly - we know for a fact, that emotion is the fastest way to co-opt logic. You can take a look at politics at home or around the world for evidence - wedge issues win, logic doesn't.
If you aren't going to exert a force to counter emotional manipulation, then your people will be emotionally manipulated. They will be manipulated the hardest, by those who find that certain facts don't work for them.
Finally - Journalism is failing because of other reasons than trust. It was an unviable market a while back. Their last source of income was the classifieds, and craigslist alone put an end to that.
Journalism which is beholden to advertising will always have to compete with entertainment. Meaning that if its not more entertaining than a sports channel, advertising money will simply go elsewhere.
I can only see independent, government or public founded journalism as the solution.
Repression works.
You make a few assumptions here, which are important to examine.
First, it was centralized power of the church, which was fighting facts that were not in congruences with their beliefs. However, today the positions are reversed, it is faith in unreal outcomes that is asking for credibility at the same level as facts.
The people who stormed America's highest houses were there because they believed that an election wasn't fair. Nothing will convince them otherwise, no matter what the evidence.
This is the essence of faith, and exactly why free speech exists. To allow human beings to be governed by reason over unreason or emotion.
Secondly - we know for a fact, that emotion is the fastest way to co-opt logic. You can take a look at politics at home or around the world for evidence - wedge issues win, logic doesn't.
If you aren't going to exert a force to counter emotional manipulation, then your people will be emotionally manipulated. They will be manipulated the hardest, by those who find that certain facts don't work for them.
Finally - Journalism is failing because of other reasons than trust. It was an unviable market a while back. Their last source of income was the classifieds, and craigslist alone put an end to that.
Journalism which is beholden to advertising will always have to compete with entertainment. Meaning that if its not more entertaining than a sports channel, advertising money will simply go elsewhere.
I can only see independent, government or public founded journalism as the solution.
> tech companies can snuff voices out of existence
lol what? I can’t even name a single person who has no method of communicating due to “tech companies”. Even Stormfront is still online.
lol what? I can’t even name a single person who has no method of communicating due to “tech companies”. Even Stormfront is still online.
If your voice is not fed to other people's ears through a recommendation algorithm, do you even have a voice at all?
Someone in another comment pointed out that Trump can release press releases or call a press conference if he chooses, or give a speech from the Oval Office. Let’s explore that. If he uses the old media tools and goes on national TV to start directing insurrectionists to the next target, what then? Do we agree that they have a responsibility to cut him off?
The social networks and now Google and Apple are faced with an evolving volatile situation where the tools they supply are being used to foment an insurrection. They are taking steps to get ahead of what may happen in the event of Trump’s removal next week. Time is of the essence.
There will be time for more nuanced discussion when emotions have cooled. Now is emphatically not the time to try to have those discussions. We need to get through the next several weeks first.
The social networks and now Google and Apple are faced with an evolving volatile situation where the tools they supply are being used to foment an insurrection. They are taking steps to get ahead of what may happen in the event of Trump’s removal next week. Time is of the essence.
There will be time for more nuanced discussion when emotions have cooled. Now is emphatically not the time to try to have those discussions. We need to get through the next several weeks first.
By that logic, we need to immediately deplatform everyone though, right? Since any single person has that capability? Why wait until it happens, kick everyone off now!
On a more serious note, if a single person can raise a mob, that mob must have already been angry and out for blood in the first place which points to deeper underlying problems than just "this one person has too much power". The real solution is to address the underlying cause for the unrest and anger felt by the mob. Any other "solution" is at best a temporary bandaid.
On a more serious note, if a single person can raise a mob, that mob must have already been angry and out for blood in the first place which points to deeper underlying problems than just "this one person has too much power". The real solution is to address the underlying cause for the unrest and anger felt by the mob. Any other "solution" is at best a temporary bandaid.
Why do you say this as if that single person and his enablers haven’t been revving up this mob for years? The mob is angry about totally counterfactual nonsense that only exists because it was deliberately spread using the platform. That is the “underlying cause”.
Don’t confuse what this mob is angry about with all the actual legitimate reasons there are to be angry.
Don’t confuse what this mob is angry about with all the actual legitimate reasons there are to be angry.
Everyone concern trolling over these things always brings up hypotheticals in an attempt to debate principals while fully ignoring everything that has actually happened in the real world.
Trump won in 2016 because the "mob" was already revved up and angry at a lot of the unfortunate legislation and narratives that already existed. He just capitalized and preyed on the existing outrage.
Yes, he and Fox and many other grifters added fuel to the fire, no question. But it's a mistake to just write off the millions upon millions of honest and good people who have been shafted by the system and are rightfully pissed while neoliberals and neocons crap all over them.
Yes, he and Fox and many other grifters added fuel to the fire, no question. But it's a mistake to just write off the millions upon millions of honest and good people who have been shafted by the system and are rightfully pissed while neoliberals and neocons crap all over them.
I didn’t write them off — quite the opposite! A crowd raiding the Capitol because they’re angry about nonexistent vote fraud and child pornography rings run by the Democrats has absolutely nothing to do with the legitimate concerns you’re talking about. It’s deliberate provocation spread using social media to distract from the actual issues.
If there were legitimate leadership that honestly wanted to address the issues you’re talking about, we’d be seeing debates in the Capitol, not a crowd trying to set it on fire. This is the result of years of party leadership that just wants to stir up emotion to get people locked into irrational loyalty, rather than actually doing anything to help people.
Trump deliberately amplified the nonsense and used it to build a cult of personality rather than doing real political work. He’s the one disrespecting the people who elected him in 2016, not me.
If there were legitimate leadership that honestly wanted to address the issues you’re talking about, we’d be seeing debates in the Capitol, not a crowd trying to set it on fire. This is the result of years of party leadership that just wants to stir up emotion to get people locked into irrational loyalty, rather than actually doing anything to help people.
Trump deliberately amplified the nonsense and used it to build a cult of personality rather than doing real political work. He’s the one disrespecting the people who elected him in 2016, not me.
A band-aid? It's more like a tourniquet.
[deleted]
Why are you so scared of people being allowed to express their political power? Words and rhetoric is how it’s always been. Are you for censoring all political speech? Given the highly partisan nature of the censorship, difficult to not see it being politically motivated.
You've been using HN primarily for political battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of which politics they're battling for, because it destroys what this site is supposed to be for, i.e. curious, thoughtful conversation.
I hate to ban an 11-year-old account, but I had to scroll back two months in your comment history to find a post about ZFS. That's seriously uncool. Between that and the fact that we've warned you many times not to abuse the site like this, I think we have to ban your account and I've done so. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
I hate to ban an 11-year-old account, but I had to scroll back two months in your comment history to find a post about ZFS. That's seriously uncool. Between that and the fact that we've warned you many times not to abuse the site like this, I think we have to ban your account and I've done so. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Parler refused to remove calls to violence. Calls to violence are not political speech.
The real problem is not so much that they can do this, which is of course entirely legal, but that a few companies have such concentrated market power. People seem to regard Twitter as some kind of essential service, but it's just fucking Twitter. In the days when there were dozens of book publishers just in New York, if one turned you down, you could go somewhere else. Now there's four.
I mean, it's actually kind of nuts to consider that Twitter has somehow 'silenced' President [expletive deleted], when he still has a whole press corps at his disposal and could call a press conference at any moment.
I mean, it's actually kind of nuts to consider that Twitter has somehow 'silenced' President [expletive deleted], when he still has a whole press corps at his disposal and could call a press conference at any moment.
> The real problem is not so much that they can do this, which is of course entirely legal...
Not "entirely" legal. All these companies claim to be neutral, and while I think they genuinely try to be, for various reasons they aren't able to stick to that standard.
The point of contracts is that you give up certain rights. On Monday, I can't sleep in all day because I've got an agreement to work. I have to set aside some money for rent because I signed a lease.
What these companies are doing may be legal in practice, because of the difficulties in litigating, but it's never entirely legal to make promises and then break them, whether they're through contracts, terms, or even marketing claims and advertisements.
When they make those claims, they voluntarily give up their right to say anything they like. Being able to give a right up is part of having it in the first place.
Twitter could change their terms to say, "we will ban or block people we have political differences with, or when bad PR is making us feel uncomfortable." Then banning people for those reasons would be 100% legal, because they would have reserved that right.
Not "entirely" legal. All these companies claim to be neutral, and while I think they genuinely try to be, for various reasons they aren't able to stick to that standard.
The point of contracts is that you give up certain rights. On Monday, I can't sleep in all day because I've got an agreement to work. I have to set aside some money for rent because I signed a lease.
What these companies are doing may be legal in practice, because of the difficulties in litigating, but it's never entirely legal to make promises and then break them, whether they're through contracts, terms, or even marketing claims and advertisements.
When they make those claims, they voluntarily give up their right to say anything they like. Being able to give a right up is part of having it in the first place.
Twitter could change their terms to say, "we will ban or block people we have political differences with, or when bad PR is making us feel uncomfortable." Then banning people for those reasons would be 100% legal, because they would have reserved that right.
Agreed, I just can't take Twitter seriously. I can see it's value for quick and cheap communication but it's always seemed like more of a quaint narcissistic toy...
I'm pretty darn cynical about social media in general though and I know my views are in the minority.
I'm pretty darn cynical about social media in general though and I know my views are in the minority.
As opposed to massive multinational corporations controlling traditional media?
I'd be willing to bet almost anything that the latter have been far more demonstrably toxic than all but the darkest corners of the Internet. Because they have a huge captive audience and have been operating as toxic bad faith actors lying and pandering to the prejudices of low information audiences for decades now.
We don't just need a conversation about Twitter, or even about Google. Or Apple.
We also need a conversation about Fox and the rest, and the fact that a tiny handful of corporations control TV content, movies, music, book publishing, print of other kinds, and so on.
In the bigger picture, Twitter is practically a small indie platform.
I'd be willing to bet almost anything that the latter have been far more demonstrably toxic than all but the darkest corners of the Internet. Because they have a huge captive audience and have been operating as toxic bad faith actors lying and pandering to the prejudices of low information audiences for decades now.
We don't just need a conversation about Twitter, or even about Google. Or Apple.
We also need a conversation about Fox and the rest, and the fact that a tiny handful of corporations control TV content, movies, music, book publishing, print of other kinds, and so on.
In the bigger picture, Twitter is practically a small indie platform.
I'm sure Twitter loves to be seen as a small indie platform because then they can shift the blame elsewhere when in fact they have far more influence than is reasonable for a healthy democratic society.
I agree with your point about Fox et al.
I agree with your point about Fox et al.
> Twitter is practically a small indie platform
Just to be clear, Twitter has over 320M users. That's more users than the population of all but 3 nations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
They are the massive multinational corporation controlling media, and a small number of Silicon Valley progressives should not be trusted with that degree of cultural and political influence and power over the world.
Just to be clear, Twitter has over 320M users. That's more users than the population of all but 3 nations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
They are the massive multinational corporation controlling media, and a small number of Silicon Valley progressives should not be trusted with that degree of cultural and political influence and power over the world.
Its not even a corporation its literally 3 people ultimately as Elon Musk pointed out just today.
Actually, I am pretty happy about people taking the threat of far-right extremism seriously.
Last time we didn't take it seriously, 6 million perished in extermination camps.
I'd like for that to not happen again. I think that is a bit more important than what apps you can run on your phone.
Last time we didn't take it seriously, 6 million perished in extermination camps.
I'd like for that to not happen again. I think that is a bit more important than what apps you can run on your phone.
How about far-left extremism? 100 million plus deaths[1].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...
Wait until you hear how many perished under left-wing extremism under Soviet rule.
The point is, you can't associate violence and death with either side of the political spectrum. Politics is a tool, not a causative agent.
I think when one side, and one side ONLY, sends armed militia with pipe bombs to storm the capitol, then yes, you can associate violence and death much more with one side than the other.
There was no 'armed militia' this is hyperbole from the news. They were peaceful protestors.
The beat a policeman to death, man. They BEAT him to DEATH.
They set up a GALLOWS outside.
They had PIPE BOMBS. They had HANDCUFFS.
What the FUCK are you on about?
They set up a GALLOWS outside.
They had PIPE BOMBS. They had HANDCUFFS.
What the FUCK are you on about?
This is a bit hilarious because many of the things were seeing today from the left are exactly what the Nazis did. They thought they were correct and morally sound as they burned books and stomped out opposition voices. They turned on a part of the population labeling them as the issue with their country. They banned guns and eventually one thing led to the next.
You need to do a lot more reading on what the Nazis actually did. I'll start you off with a hint, though: No. What "the left" is doing now bears no resemblance to the actions of the Nazi Party.
Silencing a large chunk of the population because they felt they were on the moral high ground is exactly what the Nazis did. I dont need to brush up on that part of history thank you though.
That is an absolutely nonsensical argument, that twists both the meaning of words and completely ignores large swathes of actual history.
Do better.
Do better.
If you take the time to study why and how the Nazis became popular and came into power, you’ll realise why suppression of public sentiment is so dangerous.
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political battle, or at least getting uncomfortably close to it. That's not allowed here—it destroys the curious conversation that this site is supposed to exist for. When accounts cross that line (see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... for more explanation), that's when we start banning them, regardless of which politics or ideology they're banning for.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use the site for its intended purpose—especially now, as seemingly everything descends into the hell realms—we'd be grateful.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use the site for its intended purpose—especially now, as seemingly everything descends into the hell realms—we'd be grateful.
The NSDAP had plenty of rags they lied to the German people with
Actually, you won't find anything of the kind. Only if you wilfully set out to misinterpret history will you find anything like that.
Hitler came into power because he was allowed to spread his message. Because he was given chance after chance to speak. Because he was given a platform.
Hitler came into power because he was allowed to spread his message. Because he was given chance after chance to speak. Because he was given a platform.
the argument you're presenting, at its core, is "if you dont give an evil person a chance to be evil then they wont succeed," which is correct, except how are you to interpret who is evil and who will be successful at being evil? and how do you do that fairly?
it seems to be an impossible problem to solve from my POV and removing comms from various groups willy nilly because we're too scared that humanity is too stupid practice critical thinking and not give in to evil thought is a slippery slope. there has to be other ways?
it seems to be an impossible problem to solve from my POV and removing comms from various groups willy nilly because we're too scared that humanity is too stupid practice critical thinking and not give in to evil thought is a slippery slope. there has to be other ways?
I don't think that at this point in history, right now, there is much trouble identifying who is evil.
highly disagree considering how much bs exists posing as fact/information.
Inciting violence should not be defended as free speech. In fact it’s not considered free speech. Let alone the fact the usage being blocked violates the very clear terms of service.
Inciting violence is free speech, by definition.
You don't think limiting free speech to speech that does not incite illegal violence is not a reasonable limitation?
Any limitation to speech implies that speech was never free, by definition. So, there is no reasonable limitation that preserves the "free" part of "free speech".
Let's consider some implications of what you're saying.
- Slander and libel are restrictions on free speech.
- Restrictions on any type of public insult, racial slur, hate speech or other derogatory speech are restrictions on free speech.
- Any restriction on the advertising of explicit pornography or illegal activities would also be a restriction on free speech.
If your argument is that absolute, then no, I don't support absolute free speech without qualification. I can't prove it, but I would assume that the majority of the population would rightfully take the same position that free speech should not utterly absolute with no restriction at all.
- Slander and libel are restrictions on free speech.
- Restrictions on any type of public insult, racial slur, hate speech or other derogatory speech are restrictions on free speech.
- Any restriction on the advertising of explicit pornography or illegal activities would also be a restriction on free speech.
If your argument is that absolute, then no, I don't support absolute free speech without qualification. I can't prove it, but I would assume that the majority of the population would rightfully take the same position that free speech should not utterly absolute with no restriction at all.
It doesn't matter if the majority thinks like me or not. That's the point of free speech, to let people think and speak freely. If you're against free speech, you have every right to be, but don't try to justify it by twisting words. Just say it: I do not support free speech.
Before pontificating so very much about what "free speech" is, would it be too much to ask if I requested that you learn the most basic concepts about free speech, and also figure out that actions by Twitter have no relevance whatsoever to the freedom of expression as defined in the First Amendment?
> would it be too much to ask if I requested that you learn the most basic concepts about free speech
If you think I'm missing something, tell me.
> figure out that actions by Twitter have no relevance whatsoever to the freedom of expression as defined in the First Amendment?
So? What's the first amendment got to do in this situation?
If you think I'm missing something, tell me.
> figure out that actions by Twitter have no relevance whatsoever to the freedom of expression as defined in the First Amendment?
So? What's the first amendment got to do in this situation?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Free speech has limits, does it not? The US Supreme Court has ruled that one cannot, for example, falsely scream fire in a crowded theater.
I would assume that calls for the violent overthrow of the US government in order to overturn an election at the very least should be considered as equally dangerous as screaming fire in a crowded theater.
I would assume that calls for the violent overthrow of the US government in order to overturn an election at the very least should be considered as equally dangerous as screaming fire in a crowded theater.
.... That over overturned decades ago.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
Here's a quote from the article you cited:
> n 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
I would argue that the elements of Trump's speech on Jan 6th satisfy all the elements in the lawless action test:
- Trump gave a speech on January 6th, the same date as the insurrection.
- In this speech he directed his supporters to march on the capitol with his support.
- His supporters did actually march on the Capitol, then proceeded to violently occupy it.
Regardless of Trump's inner mind, it is clear that his followers believed that his intent was for them to march on the Capitol while the election was being certified and forcefully disrupt those proceedings.
It seems to me this is a very strong case that Trump's speech did in fact incite the violence that occurred that day, and the very short amount of time separating those events make it easy to argue that one was the immediate cause of the other.
> n 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
I would argue that the elements of Trump's speech on Jan 6th satisfy all the elements in the lawless action test:
- Trump gave a speech on January 6th, the same date as the insurrection.
- In this speech he directed his supporters to march on the capitol with his support.
- His supporters did actually march on the Capitol, then proceeded to violently occupy it.
Regardless of Trump's inner mind, it is clear that his followers believed that his intent was for them to march on the Capitol while the election was being certified and forcefully disrupt those proceedings.
It seems to me this is a very strong case that Trump's speech did in fact incite the violence that occurred that day, and the very short amount of time separating those events make it easy to argue that one was the immediate cause of the other.
We are not talking about trump. We are talking about Apple, who is forcing other companies to censor their user’s speech and acting as judge and jury on what is acceptable.
Ah, let's talk about Parler specifically then.
https://fortune.com/2021/01/08/parler-violence-trump-2020-el...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/05/parler-...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/06/trump-riot-tw...
Based on these articles, it sure sounds to me like Parler users are openly calling for immediate violence.
https://fortune.com/2021/01/08/parler-violence-trump-2020-el...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/05/parler-...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/06/trump-riot-tw...
Based on these articles, it sure sounds to me like Parler users are openly calling for immediate violence.
And this is for the FBI, why is Apple acting as the government’s proxy?
You are allowed to call for the overthrow of the US government. Sedition is protected speech unless it is calling for "imminent" lawless action, as a result of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio. As a result, you are allowed to yell fire in a theater (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...).
> The US Supreme Court has ruled that one cannot, for example, falsely scream fire in a crowded theater.
Very few people seem to know the context of that ruling. That line of thought was used to justify criminal punishment of two socialists from Philadelphia for hindering the war effort in 1917. Their crime: they distributed anti-war leaflets. Elizabeth Baer spent 3 months in prison, Charles T. Schenck 10 years.
Goes to show the extent "yelling fire in a theater" can be stretched, and has been stretched from the very first case.
Very few people seem to know the context of that ruling. That line of thought was used to justify criminal punishment of two socialists from Philadelphia for hindering the war effort in 1917. Their crime: they distributed anti-war leaflets. Elizabeth Baer spent 3 months in prison, Charles T. Schenck 10 years.
Goes to show the extent "yelling fire in a theater" can be stretched, and has been stretched from the very first case.
This is just the same lame four excuses [0] to justify censorship and mass surveillance. Just replace terrorism with “inciting violence”.
Now the government doesn’t even need to get their hands dirty to censor the internet, private companies enforce it themselves with with impunity.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocal...
Now the government doesn’t even need to get their hands dirty to censor the internet, private companies enforce it themselves with with impunity.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocal...
If you think Trump incited violence, that is a crime which should be decided in a courtroom, and not in Mark Zuckerberg’s office.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think what Trump said was incitement, or even close to it. Irresponsible? Yes. Incitement? No.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think what Trump said was incitement, or even close to it. Irresponsible? Yes. Incitement? No.
This is why social media platforms are anti competitive and in risk of anti trust lawsuits. You don’t get to twist trumps words and then ban the @POTUS account just because he threatens to create a competing platform.
No reasonable person could take that as incitement. So the only logical answer is anti competitive behaviour, or political manipulation/interference.
No reasonable person could take that as incitement. So the only logical answer is anti competitive behaviour, or political manipulation/interference.
What trump did was incitement using carefully constructed language giving clear instructions while maintaining denialability.
There’s no way you believe he was doing anything else. You’re basically pushing for the denialability part by pretending to be innocently surprised.
No.
There’s no way you believe he was doing anything else. You’re basically pushing for the denialability part by pretending to be innocently surprised.
No.
Trump wound them up with lies and conspiracies and urgency two hours before they went to the capital on his recommendation. This is certainly provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully which is the definition of incitement.
The defendants will unquestionably be using the "Trump told us to" defense.
Trump violated the terms more often and worse than regular people who were removed from the platform. Thousands of regular people kicked off for violating the terms and it's Donald Fucking Trump and Parler that gets folks in an uproar? Over things that happen all the time? By long standing service agreements? What?
The defendants will unquestionably be using the "Trump told us to" defense.
Trump violated the terms more often and worse than regular people who were removed from the platform. Thousands of regular people kicked off for violating the terms and it's Donald Fucking Trump and Parler that gets folks in an uproar? Over things that happen all the time? By long standing service agreements? What?
I agree that this should be decided in a courtroom. If Trump wishes to sue Twitter or the US Government, he is more than free to do so.
However, I think both his case and yours is undermined by the very, very strong circumstantial evidence that after his lawyer, Giuliani, called for "trial by combat" and he said that he would personally lead the crowd in a march on the Capitol on Jan 6th the violent insurrection actually took place is a very strong argument that he incited the uprising.
Furthermore, the fact that even as these Trump supporters were occupying the Capitol he said that he "loves them", that also undermines any argument that he did not incite sedition.
However, I think both his case and yours is undermined by the very, very strong circumstantial evidence that after his lawyer, Giuliani, called for "trial by combat" and he said that he would personally lead the crowd in a march on the Capitol on Jan 6th the violent insurrection actually took place is a very strong argument that he incited the uprising.
Furthermore, the fact that even as these Trump supporters were occupying the Capitol he said that he "loves them", that also undermines any argument that he did not incite sedition.
Strawman. Who is calling for violent overthrow of the US government? Even one person? And on Parler or on Twitter?
> Who is calling for violent overthrow of the US government?
Does the crowd storming the Capitol chanting "hang Mike Pence" count? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW718KRYDtU
Does the crowd storming the Capitol chanting "hang Mike Pence" count? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW718KRYDtU
The President gave a speech on Wednesday, to a mob, in which he called for the violent overthrow of the US government.
It has been three days.
Have you already forgotten?
It has been three days.
Have you already forgotten?
Trump has been calling openly to overturn the election every day from Nov 3rd until Jan 6th, including when he was caught on tape attempting to convince the Secretary of State of Georgia to illegally overturn the election there.
Lots of people. Here's one subset.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boogaloo_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boogaloo_movement
Here is a great thread on Twitter that explains how Trump did. https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/1347908845281095680?...
Political affiliations don’t come in the picture when it comes to sedition and insurrection. We should have been unanimous in praising this move but unfortunately that is not the case
Apple shouldn't be obliged to host bile, but they have cornered themselves by being the only way to install apps.
> Massive multinational corporations having this much power over our speech is not healthy.
Who has power over my speech? I have iPhone, Android, Ubuntu, Mac and other tech. My speech is not limited in any way.
I can write down notes on paper if I want. I can write down content freely today as I could yesterday.
What corporation out there has any power over my speech, much less "too much power"?
Edit: I seem blocked by HN temporarily (for opposing viewpoints? I don't know but I can't post any more!) so to respond to the post below me here is an edit:
Trump should hold a press conference if he wants to say something. It can easily be streamed on the internet.
No president before 2007 had access to Twitter and they could still get the word out online if they wanted to.
Who has power over my speech? I have iPhone, Android, Ubuntu, Mac and other tech. My speech is not limited in any way.
I can write down notes on paper if I want. I can write down content freely today as I could yesterday.
What corporation out there has any power over my speech, much less "too much power"?
Edit: I seem blocked by HN temporarily (for opposing viewpoints? I don't know but I can't post any more!) so to respond to the post below me here is an edit:
Trump should hold a press conference if he wants to say something. It can easily be streamed on the internet.
No president before 2007 had access to Twitter and they could still get the word out online if they wanted to.
Let’s say Trump wants to send a message to the country using the internet right now.
How does he do it?
Think about it, and then tell me that these corporations don’t have power over our speech.
How does he do it?
Think about it, and then tell me that these corporations don’t have power over our speech.
He calls a press conference, and Fox News, ONN, the New York Times and a host of other media sources listen to the press conference, then publish his remarks on the internet.
Maybe he should fax some people while he's at it.
Possibly send some good ol' newsletters to people's mail.
Folks, this is "get on the back of the bus" behavior. People in a free society should be able to use modern, first-class services if other people can.
Possibly send some good ol' newsletters to people's mail.
Folks, this is "get on the back of the bus" behavior. People in a free society should be able to use modern, first-class services if other people can.
It is very hard for me to see the President of the United States as an unfairly persecuted, powerless individual without the ability to get his message out.
He's not. But he loves to portray himself simultaneously as a "tough guy" and as an "constantly and unfairly persecuted victim".
You need to do some light reading.
If it's important enough: https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/practitioners/integr...
If it's not, he can call a press conference which will be broadcasted over the internet.
If it's important enough: https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/practitioners/integr...
If it's not, he can call a press conference which will be broadcasted over the internet.
> If they can do this to a sitting President of the US, they can do it to every single one of us.
I've seen this exact statement on various other platforms from conservative commentators. And it's basically horseshit. Now you're concerned? Seriously? Google accounts have been locked out with no recourse for years, apple bans apps left and right and facebook 'moderates' posts based on some interesting thresholds.
I find it disingenuous to suddenly care about this when Trump finally gets kicked off twitter and a horde of extremists are blocked from inciting violence against the government.
You wanted free markets? Here they are. If you have a problem with it, move to a different platform. Build your own platform. Host it yourself. Nobody owes you anything.
And guess what? Because of the republican led FCC, the ISPs can block your extreme right-wing website. Total freedom for the ISP to do whatever the fuck they want.
I've seen this exact statement on various other platforms from conservative commentators. And it's basically horseshit. Now you're concerned? Seriously? Google accounts have been locked out with no recourse for years, apple bans apps left and right and facebook 'moderates' posts based on some interesting thresholds.
I find it disingenuous to suddenly care about this when Trump finally gets kicked off twitter and a horde of extremists are blocked from inciting violence against the government.
You wanted free markets? Here they are. If you have a problem with it, move to a different platform. Build your own platform. Host it yourself. Nobody owes you anything.
And guess what? Because of the republican led FCC, the ISPs can block your extreme right-wing website. Total freedom for the ISP to do whatever the fuck they want.
Parler was created in response to Twitter banning several far right personalities. People are more than capable of overcoming the big tech companies and finding ways to get their message out. Maybe the leader of a nation shouldn’t continually question an election and encourage his supporters to commit insurrection?
[deleted]
Apple, and any other multinational corporation, is under no obligation to host inflammatory hate speech seeking to incite an insurrection against the US Govt.
What would you call this?
https://twitter.com/adbusters/status/1288193793267625984
https://twitter.com/adbusters/status/1288193793267625984
That should clearly also be removed.
If I had a dollar for every time someone made this point...
The issue isn’t whether they have the right to deplatform. The issue is whether they _should_.
The issue isn’t whether they have the right to deplatform. The issue is whether they _should_.
Of course they should. Why shouldn’t they remove platforms that almost solely contain hate speech and insurrectionist content? Half the stuff said on Parler could constitute a hate crime, and frankly, they should have been removed from the App Store/Play Store ages ago.
I would agree. I don't think apple should be allowed to prevent side loading. And certainly not accessing things from email. But by all means, if you're running a curated store of apps, don't sell tickets to the white supremacist show
Parler refused to remove calls to violence. If I were Apple, I wouldn't want them in my app store either.
Right, but they just put a huge target on their back for something that was already an issue....being a monopoly/duopoly. Whatever you want to call it nobody can effectively compete in the app store territory.
This is true.
The latest from Twitter, claiming that by Trump stating he will not attend the Biden inauguration, he is somehow insinuating that Biden is an illegitimate president and encouraging retaliation and therefore cause for a permanent ban is completely contrived to justify them doing what they wanted to do.
This is nothing more than pandering to those about to assume power. As we all know Twitter, Facebook, Google/YouTube have been summoned to the senate many times to testify over privacy and such issues. I am quite sure they are working hard to ensure the future administration is a bit more lenient.
We should be more worried over the thousands of other vocal conservatives and constitutionalists who have been deleted in the past 48 hours. This is silencing freedom of political choice.
EDIT: Downvotes shows that cancel culture is alive and well.
The latest from Twitter, claiming that by Trump stating he will not attend the Biden inauguration, he is somehow insinuating that Biden is an illegitimate president and encouraging retaliation and therefore cause for a permanent ban is completely contrived to justify them doing what they wanted to do.
This is nothing more than pandering to those about to assume power. As we all know Twitter, Facebook, Google/YouTube have been summoned to the senate many times to testify over privacy and such issues. I am quite sure they are working hard to ensure the future administration is a bit more lenient.
We should be more worried over the thousands of other vocal conservatives and constitutionalists who have been deleted in the past 48 hours. This is silencing freedom of political choice.
EDIT: Downvotes shows that cancel culture is alive and well.
Not really, you can still choose to have whatever views, you can walk into the town square and shout your views, you can pass out flyers, you can do a lot. You can still vote for whom you want, without telling everyone, you can run for office, you can start a petition, etc.
The newspaper was never forced to print whether was sent in. A book publisher never had to publish a book they didn't want to, and a social media site isn't required to host your content. They're no political freedom being taken here.
The newspaper was never forced to print whether was sent in. A book publisher never had to publish a book they didn't want to, and a social media site isn't required to host your content. They're no political freedom being taken here.
Pretty hard to have a voice during COVID times without social media?
A few thousand people just had a big protest, I think it's easy enough. Also, covid-19 will end someday. The hot takes here are getting rediculous.
I strongly, strongly disagree. The "free and open internet" is a farce and only existed decades ago because nobody had any idea what they were doing yet.
We cannot allow people easy access to radicalization.
We cannot allow people easy access to radicalization.
The short term calculus seems pretty clear: if a service is unable to moderate conversations that are inciting and planning imminent violence that undermines the fabric of democratic society (aka inauguration or the disruption of the transfer of power over the next 12 days), its better to shut it off than keep it around in case that violence comes to pass. Precautionary principle applies and a circuit breaker goes off.
This is a special case that sits within a much broader question of where, how, and whether speech is regulated online. We clearly haven't gotten very far along in that discussion yet, but society needs time to even be able to have that conversation intellectually and legislatively. If a peaceful and orderly transition of power is unable to occur, unfortunately we may never be given that time.
This is a special case that sits within a much broader question of where, how, and whether speech is regulated online. We clearly haven't gotten very far along in that discussion yet, but society needs time to even be able to have that conversation intellectually and legislatively. If a peaceful and orderly transition of power is unable to occur, unfortunately we may never be given that time.
Not just "unable to moderate". Every platform has some content that they struggle to moderate due to scale issues. The issue with Parler is that they purposefully attracted the absolute dregs of society, and now there isn't much else on it other than plans and threats of violence. They're a half step above Gab, barely.
Edit: I'll note that Parler banned the DevinNunesCow parody account. They are fully capable of moderating when they want to, they just don't want to moderate calls for violence.
Edit: I'll note that Parler banned the DevinNunesCow parody account. They are fully capable of moderating when they want to, they just don't want to moderate calls for violence.
Thank you for mentioning that Parler do moderate when it goes against their desired message.
This is the crux of the issue. Not only is Parler NOT moderating hate speech on their platform, they pretend as if moderation is anathema to their model, thereby further enforcing the views of their users as all encompassing. They exist for the sole reason to provide a particular community, one that is fomenting insurrection and terrorism.
This is the crux of the issue. Not only is Parler NOT moderating hate speech on their platform, they pretend as if moderation is anathema to their model, thereby further enforcing the views of their users as all encompassing. They exist for the sole reason to provide a particular community, one that is fomenting insurrection and terrorism.
[deleted]
And yet Amazon managed to get a plan out of Parler that promised to increase moderation of violent content manually with the help of volunteers. Whether or not that plan was workable is moot now, it seems.
It is moot because the parler system has no accountability for the company or the "moderators". Parler can just say it was moderated by these random accounts and then try and wash their hands clean. The point is to have accountable, enforceable moderation.
For people interested, this is the moderation system according to an interview the CEO gave ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/opinion/sway-kara-swisher... ).
> Well, the way we work on our platform is we put everything to a community jury. So everyone’s judged by a jury of their peers in determining whether the action is illegal or against our rules. And so if reported, it goes to a jury of people’s peers. And if it’s deemed illegal, promptly deleted. But, you know, the jury of five people get to decide. And it’s a random jury, so they don’t know each other. They don’t know what they’re voting. They just get the independent facts of the situation and they make their own judgment call. We’ve actually been inviting journalists and other people to join the jury as well, so that we have a nice transparent jury system.
For people interested, this is the moderation system according to an interview the CEO gave ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/opinion/sway-kara-swisher... ).
> Well, the way we work on our platform is we put everything to a community jury. So everyone’s judged by a jury of their peers in determining whether the action is illegal or against our rules. And so if reported, it goes to a jury of people’s peers. And if it’s deemed illegal, promptly deleted. But, you know, the jury of five people get to decide. And it’s a random jury, so they don’t know each other. They don’t know what they’re voting. They just get the independent facts of the situation and they make their own judgment call. We’ve actually been inviting journalists and other people to join the jury as well, so that we have a nice transparent jury system.
Google also runs an ISP. Do you want them to police which IP addresses "don't promote insurrection"? Seems like something a judge and jury should perform.. Democracy and all that..
Calling it now. The horseshoe theory is about to manifest in the most real way possible. Silicon Valley is going to clamp down on first amendment rights and vindicate the garbage insurrection we're seeing now. You'd think Americans would've learned something about blowback.
The social media platforms we use influence our democracy in a big way. The fact they can share ownership with hostile and non-democratic regimes is curious.
Calling it now. The horseshoe theory is about to manifest in the most real way possible. Silicon Valley is going to clamp down on first amendment rights and vindicate the garbage insurrection we're seeing now. You'd think Americans would've learned something about blowback.
The social media platforms we use influence our democracy in a big way. The fact they can share ownership with hostile and non-democratic regimes is curious.
Personal behavior can have consequences. If I get in the habit of abusing my neighbors and the local service staff, I might get banned from buying lattes along with the other adults.
This isn’t a complex concept. The idea that a company can continually host people planning an insurrection and not get shown the door by the free market is actually a radical idea.
This isn’t a complex concept. The idea that a company can continually host people planning an insurrection and not get shown the door by the free market is actually a radical idea.
As I stated, the horseshoe is going to come full circle. Commence the sequence where burning books is a virtue.
This isn’t burning books. This is getting banned by the local Starbucks for shouting slurs at the barista. It’s incredibly disingenuous to call this “burning books”.
And that’s before we cover the fact that you are arguing that the government should force private companies to associate with people based on their political affiliations. That sounds authoritarian to me.
And that’s before we cover the fact that you are arguing that the government should force private companies to associate with people based on their political affiliations. That sounds authoritarian to me.
It's also incredibly disingenious to equate the App Store with the local Starbucks.
Starbucks probably has a larger share of the coffee market than Apple does of the computing market.
Either way, Apple selling a bunch of stuff gives you no right to access their equipment. Nor does it make giving the government the right to reach in and compel Apple to do business with people and entities they don’t want to. That’s authoritarian, and if you think that won’t be abused by a later administration, I’m not sure what you’ve been paying attention to for four years.
If you think Apples so big that they have too much influence, then what you need is antitrust law, not the first amendment.
Either way, Apple selling a bunch of stuff gives you no right to access their equipment. Nor does it make giving the government the right to reach in and compel Apple to do business with people and entities they don’t want to. That’s authoritarian, and if you think that won’t be abused by a later administration, I’m not sure what you’ve been paying attention to for four years.
If you think Apples so big that they have too much influence, then what you need is antitrust law, not the first amendment.
> If you think Apples so big that they have too much influence, then what you need is antitrust law, not the first amendment.
I agree. I was just taking issue with your analogy because your app getting banned from App Store isn't comparable to getting banned from the local Starbucks. On multiple levels. Acting like it is is misrepresenting the issue.
I agree. I was just taking issue with your analogy because your app getting banned from App Store isn't comparable to getting banned from the local Starbucks. On multiple levels. Acting like it is is misrepresenting the issue.
But here's the rub. You don't have an affirmative right to either Apple or Starbucks. If your behavior gets you kicked out of either, that's on you. Companies have the right of free association too, and while you can complain when you're on the short end of that stick, your rights have not been violated.
Pretending that anyone has a right to either is not only entitled nonsense, it's downright authoritarian. What is being advocated here is that the government should come in and force Apple to do business with fascists and terrorists against their will. Even if you imagine that this will encourage "free speech", and I promise you it will not, this is a power that will come to haunt us all if you give it to the government.
Pretending that anyone has a right to either is not only entitled nonsense, it's downright authoritarian. What is being advocated here is that the government should come in and force Apple to do business with fascists and terrorists against their will. Even if you imagine that this will encourage "free speech", and I promise you it will not, this is a power that will come to haunt us all if you give it to the government.
Compared to the power that the ability to arbitrarily deplatform people is giving to effective monopolies like Twitter, I'd definitely rather have the government be able to force companies to do business with anyone. There's clearly less potential for abuse in the latter.
This isn't analogous to burning books, it's analogous to individual bookstore chains choosing not to stock your book. Or to individual publishers choosing not to publish your book.
No one is stopping you from self-publishing your manifestos and selling them out of the trunk of your car, metaphorically speaking.
Or literally, in Josh Hawley’s case.
No one is stopping you from self-publishing your manifestos and selling them out of the trunk of your car, metaphorically speaking.
Or literally, in Josh Hawley’s case.
> Do you want them to police which IP addresses "don't promote insurrection"?
Should've thought of that before repealing net neutrality.
Should've thought of that before repealing net neutrality.
Don't you see you're falling down the same rathole? Your language and imagery is... kinda violent. It's not an argument about principles, with nuance, you've got enemies. You're warning about "blowback". You're saying that the insurrection is "vindicated". You're implying that this action against Parler is a foreign conspiracy too.
Now... is that one post beyond what HN should allow? Probably not, and it's not my call, we'll see what dang says. But imagine a whole community of people like you warning constantly about imagined terrors and existential threats. And everyone gets to one-up each other.
That's what Parler is. Before long you get senior thought leaders like the President's former attorney (or whatever Lin Wood is) expressly calling for the Vice President to be executed to stop an imagined "steal" of the election. And then the mob attacks the VP and congress trying to do exactly that.
It has to be stopped somehow, right? We can't have online communities pushing real world violence. And it all starts with content moderation. The reason this seems so extreme is that it should have happened LONG ago.
Now... is that one post beyond what HN should allow? Probably not, and it's not my call, we'll see what dang says. But imagine a whole community of people like you warning constantly about imagined terrors and existential threats. And everyone gets to one-up each other.
That's what Parler is. Before long you get senior thought leaders like the President's former attorney (or whatever Lin Wood is) expressly calling for the Vice President to be executed to stop an imagined "steal" of the election. And then the mob attacks the VP and congress trying to do exactly that.
It has to be stopped somehow, right? We can't have online communities pushing real world violence. And it all starts with content moderation. The reason this seems so extreme is that it should have happened LONG ago.
Interesting choice of words "imagined terrors and existential threats".
This is what Glen Greenwald was arguing that the left has been doing.
This is what Glen Greenwald was arguing that the left has been doing.
Greenwald was outrageously wrong, though. It's clear the threat the left was imagining is real, we saw that on Wednesday.
Greenwald is a crank who rage quit because his editors asked him to provide actual sources. I’m not sure why anyone listens to him anymore.
I do worry about the consequences of Twitter, Reddit, et al banning the more marginal content, though.
When The_Donald was on reddit, it was more easily monitored in one place. People who used it at least were forced to confront evidence daily that they weren't holding the majority opinion. And grownups from the platform could remove (and report to LE) the worst stuff.
When you ban those people from mainstream platforms, you do deny them some of an audience. But you also encourage them to make their own echo chambers and congregate elsewhere, which may be on the balance worse.
Now we see the same things happening with Twitter / Parler and Gab.
It's definitely hard to know where to draw the line. Karl Popper and all that.
When The_Donald was on reddit, it was more easily monitored in one place. People who used it at least were forced to confront evidence daily that they weren't holding the majority opinion. And grownups from the platform could remove (and report to LE) the worst stuff.
When you ban those people from mainstream platforms, you do deny them some of an audience. But you also encourage them to make their own echo chambers and congregate elsewhere, which may be on the balance worse.
Now we see the same things happening with Twitter / Parler and Gab.
It's definitely hard to know where to draw the line. Karl Popper and all that.
FWIW, I've almost never seen this argument made by people who aren't secretly or openly supporting those who are banned (you being the exception here).
I believe there's quite a bit of data now that shows that deplatforming tends to work. I have forgotten all the names, but someone named "Milo" seems relevant, and wasn't Alex Jones also banned from somewhere and lost a lot of influence since?
And those are the cases where bans would tend to fail, i. e. people that had years to grow a loyal fan base, collect names & emails, etc. If it works in those cases, it should be extremely powerful when being used a bit more proactive. Anybody watching /r/thed... would have known it's toxic two weeks in, before it had time to spiral entirely out of control.
I believe there's quite a bit of data now that shows that deplatforming tends to work. I have forgotten all the names, but someone named "Milo" seems relevant, and wasn't Alex Jones also banned from somewhere and lost a lot of influence since?
And those are the cases where bans would tend to fail, i. e. people that had years to grow a loyal fan base, collect names & emails, etc. If it works in those cases, it should be extremely powerful when being used a bit more proactive. Anybody watching /r/thed... would have known it's toxic two weeks in, before it had time to spiral entirely out of control.
I think that maybe, if you ban really early, you can interrupt some of the badness--- but this is also the time it's hardest to justify quelling speech.
But by the point they have a large community together, they'll go somewhere else and be worse. Better would be to constantly prune off the worst bits of the community that are most over the line rather than purging all at once (which guarantees a migration).
It's hard to disentangle what the exact causes are, but it sure seems like the discourse has gotten even worse over the past couple of years even as these types of deplatforming choices have been made.
e.g. thedonald.win is infinitely worse than /r/TheDonald was.
I do also worry a bit about a few powerful parties becoming intermediaries to communication (Twitter, Facebook) and imposing their own standards, too. Right now the choices being made are relatively benign, but will they always be?
Once you have an isolated pile of mostly violent extremists with no content control-- go ahead and censor away, though.
But by the point they have a large community together, they'll go somewhere else and be worse. Better would be to constantly prune off the worst bits of the community that are most over the line rather than purging all at once (which guarantees a migration).
It's hard to disentangle what the exact causes are, but it sure seems like the discourse has gotten even worse over the past couple of years even as these types of deplatforming choices have been made.
e.g. thedonald.win is infinitely worse than /r/TheDonald was.
I do also worry a bit about a few powerful parties becoming intermediaries to communication (Twitter, Facebook) and imposing their own standards, too. Right now the choices being made are relatively benign, but will they always be?
Once you have an isolated pile of mostly violent extremists with no content control-- go ahead and censor away, though.
FWIW I only discovered reddit because I was "deplatformed" from Digg due to sharing the image below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controvers...
Can't be the only one. Reddit was a libertarian cesspool at the time, a crime for sure. RIP Mr.Swartz <3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controvers...
Can't be the only one. Reddit was a libertarian cesspool at the time, a crime for sure. RIP Mr.Swartz <3
> It has to be stopped somehow, right? We can't have online communities pushing real world violence.
Seems like a function of a democratic government, not Jeff Bezos. Because Jeff Bezos isn't the government. Well, maybe, but not officially right?
What more could the FBI want than to have every extremist in the country communicating from one centralized server on AWS? Sad. Now they'll probably adopt a secure decentralized communication strategy and form into cells that can't easily be tracked.. wait, this happened before didn't it
Seems like a function of a democratic government, not Jeff Bezos. Because Jeff Bezos isn't the government. Well, maybe, but not officially right?
What more could the FBI want than to have every extremist in the country communicating from one centralized server on AWS? Sad. Now they'll probably adopt a secure decentralized communication strategy and form into cells that can't easily be tracked.. wait, this happened before didn't it
The fact that you think his post is violent and want to tattle to the moderator is all I need to be afraid of censorship.
Every bit of his comment is a valid concern and Matt Taibbi had a similar and sadly predictive post about this a few weeks ago on this subject [1].
[1] https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-youtube-ban-is-un-american...
Every bit of his comment is a valid concern and Matt Taibbi had a similar and sadly predictive post about this a few weeks ago on this subject [1].
[1] https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-youtube-ban-is-un-american...
Parler pulled down Lin Wood's posts floating the idea of executing Mike Pence. I guess even Parler has limits on what kind of crazy they want to be associated with.
No, that was pulled off because Lin Wood didn't want to leave a paper trail. Fortunately, many have taken screenshots.
Okay, I stand corrected, thanks. Also, what a stupid idiot that man is.
I’d argue that he’s not stupid, I would argue that he is genuinely unwell. His private behavior, documented in a lawsuit by his former associates, paints a picture of a man whose behavior in private is as dangerous and unhinged as his current public behavior is. He called himself the second coming of Jesus in a private email, allegedly.
He is another case of a public figure that would’ve gotten positive coverage in the history books if he’d had the good fortune to die a while ago. Him and Giuliani, who also seems unwell.
He is another case of a public figure that would’ve gotten positive coverage in the history books if he’d had the good fortune to die a while ago. Him and Giuliani, who also seems unwell.
You could argue that. I think that by 2021 most public figures should understand that deleting a post is not equivalent to not posting it in the first place. "In a deleted post..." is a common way to start news stories these days.
He either posted something stupid like an idiot and then deleted for damage control, or he's playing five dimensional chess with us, but my money is on the former.
He either posted something stupid like an idiot and then deleted for damage control, or he's playing five dimensional chess with us, but my money is on the former.
> purposefully attracted the absolute dregs of society
Have Parler done anything specific to attract extremists, other than taking a hard stance on free speech? Just going by their splash page, and values page, I don't see anything that indicates they have.
The fact that it's user base may be overwhelmingly "dregs" seems to just be a function of the lack of free speech in mainstream platforms.
Have Parler done anything specific to attract extremists, other than taking a hard stance on free speech? Just going by their splash page, and values page, I don't see anything that indicates they have.
The fact that it's user base may be overwhelmingly "dregs" seems to just be a function of the lack of free speech in mainstream platforms.
> other than taking a hard stance on free speech?
Every platform created for this reason that gains a large following does so specifically because it attracts people who recently got banned from some previous existing service for being terrible. See 8Chan post gamergate or Voat post-banning of r/fatpeoplehate. Not saying it's wrong to be pro-all-kinds-of-speech-allowed-on-platform-that-you-run, but those kinds of platforms usually only surge in popularity when a bunch of people get banned from a more mainstream platform where being a dick is against the rules.
Edit: don't want to make it sound like big tech companies like Twitter / FB and Amazon are "good" for doing this. They're only doing this because they feel pressure to do so. If the execs had a moral compass, they would treat every user the same, and ban people based on the same set of rules.
Every platform created for this reason that gains a large following does so specifically because it attracts people who recently got banned from some previous existing service for being terrible. See 8Chan post gamergate or Voat post-banning of r/fatpeoplehate. Not saying it's wrong to be pro-all-kinds-of-speech-allowed-on-platform-that-you-run, but those kinds of platforms usually only surge in popularity when a bunch of people get banned from a more mainstream platform where being a dick is against the rules.
Edit: don't want to make it sound like big tech companies like Twitter / FB and Amazon are "good" for doing this. They're only doing this because they feel pressure to do so. If the execs had a moral compass, they would treat every user the same, and ban people based on the same set of rules.
Every platform waxes poetic about "free speech" to users. Then they have to deal with the reality some users are more trouble than they're worth and they click ban. Or advertisers who pay the bills want "brand safety."
Parler is an astroturf social network founded by the funders of Trump’s campaign, Brexit and other such things. It’s not an alternate social network someone decided to run some day.
This does also mean that if it doesn’t die right now, eventually it will when the funders get tired of it.
This does also mean that if it doesn’t die right now, eventually it will when the funders get tired of it.
> Have Parler done anything specific to attract extremists
The site was, for sure, intended originally as a right wing twitter. While they probably don't want extremists, per se, they have made absolutely no attempt to moderate legitimately violent rhetoric (c.f. the Lin Wood threat last week to have Pence executed, which seems extremely frightening in retrospect).
You can see some collected horror shows via aggregation like https://twitter.com/RWParlerWatch and https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/
It is Daily Stormer or 8kun? No, not yet. But it's really, really bad there.
The site was, for sure, intended originally as a right wing twitter. While they probably don't want extremists, per se, they have made absolutely no attempt to moderate legitimately violent rhetoric (c.f. the Lin Wood threat last week to have Pence executed, which seems extremely frightening in retrospect).
You can see some collected horror shows via aggregation like https://twitter.com/RWParlerWatch and https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/
It is Daily Stormer or 8kun? No, not yet. But it's really, really bad there.
I thought that MeWe was supposed to be the new "free speech platform" but then Parler sprung up, and the really vile stuff went over there.
although MeWe had quickly attracted racists and actual nazis too, though.
although MeWe had quickly attracted racists and actual nazis too, though.
That's a shame, I'm somewhat of a free speech absolutist, barring calls for violence and other obvious illegal speech.
Looking into Parlers record on moderation, they don't seem to live up to their own values, removing content that doesn't violate their values, as well as failing to remove content that does.
Kinda. I mean... look, they're just a partisan site. There's nothing new about that, their hook was that they looked like twitter and weren't a vbulletin or whatever.
It wasn't supposed to be like this. If it was just a bunch of right wingers hanging out and complaining, akin to the left-wingers you find on /r/politics or whatever, then no one would care.
But right wing grievance shifted over the Trump years into explicitly violent and insurrectionist rhetoric and imagery. And as of Wednesday that's no longer a theoretical threat.
It wasn't supposed to be like this. If it was just a bunch of right wingers hanging out and complaining, akin to the left-wingers you find on /r/politics or whatever, then no one would care.
But right wing grievance shifted over the Trump years into explicitly violent and insurrectionist rhetoric and imagery. And as of Wednesday that's no longer a theoretical threat.
I think the recent NYT article on DLive laid out a theory that I find particularly convincing.
> In messages obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Wayn told employees last year that he wanted to suspend some of the white supremacists and neo-Nazis who streamed on his site. But, he added, “if today we ban everyone controversial on DLive, the difficulties we will encounter on the growth will be 10x more than having them.”
> The strategy, Mr. Wayn said, was to “tolerate” them while amassing more legitimate video game players who would eventually “dilute” the right-wing community.[0]
Parler isn't run by "extremely principled libertarians," Parler just wants to get its foot in the door. And when taking on a dominant, well-funded incumbent, few users is perhaps better than no users.
It seems to have worked out for Reddit.
[0]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/technology/dlive-capitol-...
> In messages obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Wayn told employees last year that he wanted to suspend some of the white supremacists and neo-Nazis who streamed on his site. But, he added, “if today we ban everyone controversial on DLive, the difficulties we will encounter on the growth will be 10x more than having them.”
> The strategy, Mr. Wayn said, was to “tolerate” them while amassing more legitimate video game players who would eventually “dilute” the right-wing community.[0]
Parler isn't run by "extremely principled libertarians," Parler just wants to get its foot in the door. And when taking on a dominant, well-funded incumbent, few users is perhaps better than no users.
It seems to have worked out for Reddit.
[0]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/technology/dlive-capitol-...
This seems like a poor week to execute such a growth strategy.
Reddit made their bones with what I'd consider very high quality content. I used reddit before the Digg exodus and it was very techy and high-brow for the most part. Then came the cat pics and corny jokes. Then it spiralled.
So AWS is now the arbiter of what actions are supposedly harmful to the fabric of democratic society? It's one thing for the courts to do this, it's quite another for infrastructure providers to decide it's now their job to police their customers.
We rely on AWS, and now I'm thinking this is a giant mistake - what if they unilaterally decide one day that our business is politically unacceptable because a bad person says nice things about us?
The upshot is that this will provide a huge shot in the arm to the decentralized web... and, of course, once people who are plotting bad things all move to end-to-end encrypted platforms like Signal it will be that much more difficult to figure out who the bad people are.
We rely on AWS, and now I'm thinking this is a giant mistake - what if they unilaterally decide one day that our business is politically unacceptable because a bad person says nice things about us?
The upshot is that this will provide a huge shot in the arm to the decentralized web... and, of course, once people who are plotting bad things all move to end-to-end encrypted platforms like Signal it will be that much more difficult to figure out who the bad people are.
This "so service x is now the arbiter..." argument keeps coming up in the threads about companies trying to limit their exposure.
Yes. They absolutely 100% are the arbiter of what you can do on their platforms. They have not only the right, but the responsibility to kick you off if your actions threaten the continued operation of their platform, either directly or indirectly. And allowing the sort of speech that brings down a government is absolutely something that threatens the whole platform. Even if Amazon wanted you to storm the capitol, execute the VP, or whatever other dangerous stuff is currently being discussed on Parler, allowing that discussion to happen publicly on AWS-hosted websites would be a bad business decision.
It is 100% their job to police their customers, it always has been, it always will be. This isn't new, it's just how a responsible business operates. No business has ever been immune from the actions their clientele takes, and business have always dropped clients they didn't want to be associated with. (And "seditionist" is not a protected class that is legally prevented from discrimination)
Yes. They absolutely 100% are the arbiter of what you can do on their platforms. They have not only the right, but the responsibility to kick you off if your actions threaten the continued operation of their platform, either directly or indirectly. And allowing the sort of speech that brings down a government is absolutely something that threatens the whole platform. Even if Amazon wanted you to storm the capitol, execute the VP, or whatever other dangerous stuff is currently being discussed on Parler, allowing that discussion to happen publicly on AWS-hosted websites would be a bad business decision.
It is 100% their job to police their customers, it always has been, it always will be. This isn't new, it's just how a responsible business operates. No business has ever been immune from the actions their clientele takes, and business have always dropped clients they didn't want to be associated with. (And "seditionist" is not a protected class that is legally prevented from discrimination)
I don’t hear a peep from people about AWS banning Bitcoin miners. They’re providing proof of what kind of content exists on their servers. It’s the same with child porn and other criminal content.
People offended by AWS’s stance, please help explain the differences in aforementioned violations.
The only odd part of all of this is why now? AWS should have banned them during formation. They tolerated it because of Trump being in power. This is the only cowardly hypocritical thing I see with the recent bans. All of a sudden cat is acting like a Lion in the cave after the Lion has left.
People offended by AWS’s stance, please help explain the differences in aforementioned violations.
The only odd part of all of this is why now? AWS should have banned them during formation. They tolerated it because of Trump being in power. This is the only cowardly hypocritical thing I see with the recent bans. All of a sudden cat is acting like a Lion in the cave after the Lion has left.
The heck are you talking about? Bitcoin isn't illegal. And AWS actually have numerous reporting obligations surrounding the use of instances for illegal activity and content if they become aware of it. Which in the case of Parler they're explicitly and overtly aware.
> The heck are you talking about? Bitcoin isn't illegal.
That's the point. Booting Parler off of AWS isn't illegal either. You know, conservative principles of free enterprise and all. AWS isn't government that will protect free speech.
That's the point. Booting Parler off of AWS isn't illegal either. You know, conservative principles of free enterprise and all. AWS isn't government that will protect free speech.
The person you responded to is largely correct, despite your aggressive tone.
While AWS will act on anything that's reported, they are well known to do absolutely nothing in addition to that to stop the rampant usage of their platform to spread child pornography, unlike FB and other platforms which invest heavily in stopping the spread of child abuse material.
Amazon AWS really don't care about what goes on their platform unless it becomes a potential PR issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/09/us/internet-c...
While AWS will act on anything that's reported, they are well known to do absolutely nothing in addition to that to stop the rampant usage of their platform to spread child pornography, unlike FB and other platforms which invest heavily in stopping the spread of child abuse material.
Amazon AWS really don't care about what goes on their platform unless it becomes a potential PR issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/09/us/internet-c...
So you'd be fine with platforms purging anything critical of them?
I guess in theory I wouldn't have an issue with that, but in practice a lot most of the time there isn't really an alternative.
I guess in theory I wouldn't have an issue with that, but in practice a lot most of the time there isn't really an alternative.
> So you'd be fine with platforms purging anything critical of them?
That is a completely absurd false equivalence. The decision to host content that could get their entire company shut down by the US government is not anything close to the same as the decision to host content that is critical of their company.
But yes, if they wanted to make that decision, it would be completely within their rights. It would be a dumb decision, as it would turn away a huge number of their customers, but it would be within their rights. (Comparatively, the decision to turn away violent hate speech will deter very few of their customers on a global scale)
That is a completely absurd false equivalence. The decision to host content that could get their entire company shut down by the US government is not anything close to the same as the decision to host content that is critical of their company.
But yes, if they wanted to make that decision, it would be completely within their rights. It would be a dumb decision, as it would turn away a huge number of their customers, but it would be within their rights. (Comparatively, the decision to turn away violent hate speech will deter very few of their customers on a global scale)
>That is a completely absurd false equivalence.
Except it's not an equivalence at all. I'm simply saying (and evidently correctly at that), that your justification would also apply to this other situation.
> It would be a dumb decision, as it would turn away a huge number of their customers, but it would be within their rights.
Well, that's where I totally disagree. The vast, vast majority of customers wouldn't be in violation of it, so they have nothing to gain from switching and morality is at best an afterthought.
Except it's not an equivalence at all. I'm simply saying (and evidently correctly at that), that your justification would also apply to this other situation.
> It would be a dumb decision, as it would turn away a huge number of their customers, but it would be within their rights.
Well, that's where I totally disagree. The vast, vast majority of customers wouldn't be in violation of it, so they have nothing to gain from switching and morality is at best an afterthought.
[deleted]
Note that someone approving of one particular action by AWS does not imply that person approves of all actual or hypothetical actions that AWS might take. That’s absurd.
Except that's not at all what I said. I actually chose that example because I think the vast majority of people wouldn't approve it.
They're arguing that this action is fine because they own the platform, so they can kick off whoever they want to. Do they accept that this also includes justifying kicking off people generally thought of as good?
They're arguing that this action is fine because they own the platform, so they can kick off whoever they want to. Do they accept that this also includes justifying kicking off people generally thought of as good?
You’re repeating the same absurdity I outlined. There’s a big difference between saying “that company is free to make that decision” and “I approve of that decision by that company.” Approving of one decision does not imply being bound to approve of all future decisions of that company.
No, you just seem to think for some reason that "justifying kicking off people generally thought of as good" means approving of this action.
They're not saying that kicking off people critical of them is good (i.e. something they personally approve of), but they're saying that it's reasonable.
They're not saying that kicking off people critical of them is good (i.e. something they personally approve of), but they're saying that it's reasonable.
So you're just splitting hairs over the difference between "approve" and "find reasonable" until someone gives up and agrees with you?
I can't tell if you're trolling. They literally even themselves responded saying that while they wouldn't approve, they think it's something the company should be allowed to do.
If you can't understand the difference, that's on you.
And I can't tell if you're trolling, for the exact same reasons you gave. They gave a reply that should satisfy your question, and you drilled down again because it didn't use your exact words.
Do you not understand how comment threads works? I didn't drill down on the original person (because while I disagree with them, they're willing to accept the logical conclusions of their justification), but on someone who insisted that my statement was absurd, even after I repeatedly tried clarifying it.
What a waste of time.
What a waste of time.
There are legitimate business concerns:
1. What if it turns out that Facebook Groups were utilized in the effort by some in the mob to capture members of Congress in the Capitol and hang the Vice President, and that some of this was explicit ahead of time? This isn't theoretical -- keep in mind that the group planning to kidnap Gov. Whitmer organized on Facebook. Did Facebook play a role in promoting people to join that group? This creates not just PR problems, but also hiring problems. Who wants to write the algorithm that recommended a hate group and play a role in radicalizing people to violence?
2. A key moment from the Congressional hearings into tech companies was when Jack Dorsey, asked if the cure for bad speech is more speech, replied: "All of our policies are focused on encouraging more speech. What we saw and what the market told us was that people would not put up with abuse, harassment, and misleading information that would cause offline harm, and they would leave our service because of it." It's hard to fault these companies for wanting growth, and kicking people out can actually encourage that growth!
3. Young people are often the most profitable audiences. And many of the key creators for those audiences are also young. It's a serious problem for YouTube if their brand becomes Rudy Giuliani instead of [whatever makeup vlogger is popular right now]. This is similar to point (2), but slightly different. Even a smaller audience can be more profitable.
To the "no alternative" point, I'm sympathetic to anti-monopoly efforts. Mostly for my own left-wing reasons: https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/imagining-a-democrati...
But also, these efforts should be broader than just the technology companies: http://concentrationcrisis.openmarketsinstitute.org
That said, even if you took these actions, it'd be hard for any company that wasn't taking moderation seriously among people planning violent overthrows of government. (Which I think is a good thing. Companies should care if armed insurrections are openly being plotted on the merits, not just for business reasons.)
1. What if it turns out that Facebook Groups were utilized in the effort by some in the mob to capture members of Congress in the Capitol and hang the Vice President, and that some of this was explicit ahead of time? This isn't theoretical -- keep in mind that the group planning to kidnap Gov. Whitmer organized on Facebook. Did Facebook play a role in promoting people to join that group? This creates not just PR problems, but also hiring problems. Who wants to write the algorithm that recommended a hate group and play a role in radicalizing people to violence?
2. A key moment from the Congressional hearings into tech companies was when Jack Dorsey, asked if the cure for bad speech is more speech, replied: "All of our policies are focused on encouraging more speech. What we saw and what the market told us was that people would not put up with abuse, harassment, and misleading information that would cause offline harm, and they would leave our service because of it." It's hard to fault these companies for wanting growth, and kicking people out can actually encourage that growth!
3. Young people are often the most profitable audiences. And many of the key creators for those audiences are also young. It's a serious problem for YouTube if their brand becomes Rudy Giuliani instead of [whatever makeup vlogger is popular right now]. This is similar to point (2), but slightly different. Even a smaller audience can be more profitable.
To the "no alternative" point, I'm sympathetic to anti-monopoly efforts. Mostly for my own left-wing reasons: https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/imagining-a-democrati...
But also, these efforts should be broader than just the technology companies: http://concentrationcrisis.openmarketsinstitute.org
That said, even if you took these actions, it'd be hard for any company that wasn't taking moderation seriously among people planning violent overthrows of government. (Which I think is a good thing. Companies should care if armed insurrections are openly being plotted on the merits, not just for business reasons.)
I don't doubt that these companies are acting in their own best interest, if I was in their position I probably would have done the same (well, actually I probably would have done it a whole lot earlier), but that doesn't mean that it's great that corporations have this power. Hell, the fact that these companies are likely actually just doing all this because it's better for their bottom line makes me actually _less_ trusting of them.
Hate speech is definitely an issue, but I want the government, who are democratically elected and (should) serve the people, to take care of it.
Anti-monopoly efforts are nice, but the required scale of them seems incredibly unrealistic for anything that isn't far off into the future. Especially because it seems likely that for internet companies other countries would simply step in (unless you put up some china like internet firewall...).
Hate speech is definitely an issue, but I want the government, who are democratically elected and (should) serve the people, to take care of it.
Anti-monopoly efforts are nice, but the required scale of them seems incredibly unrealistic for anything that isn't far off into the future. Especially because it seems likely that for internet companies other countries would simply step in (unless you put up some china like internet firewall...).
I personally don't want government to mandate speech policies on private companies and think people should be allowed to join websites that enforce values they like and agree with. My woodworking forum should be allowed to have a "no politics" rule. A Christian dating site should be allowed to ban atheists, like me. A social media app should be allowed to ban hate speech -- I don't want government making it illegal for there to be communities without hate speech.
Unless you're suggesting government should just ban hate speech? I don't favor that, either, but maybe I should ask for clarity here.
Unless you're suggesting government should just ban hate speech? I don't favor that, either, but maybe I should ask for clarity here.
For 'normal' companies this definitely would be absurd, but I think a good amount of these incredibly large companies should essentially be regulated as a public utility.
>Unless you're suggesting government should just ban hate speech?
For 'published' speech that is, essentially like libel. I know that censorship laws can be dangerous, but it realistically just strikes me as the lesser evil. You evidently can't just let that stuff openly fester, but I simply can't imagine a situation where the government would suppress 'good' speech but a company with equal power wouldn't.
>Unless you're suggesting government should just ban hate speech?
For 'published' speech that is, essentially like libel. I know that censorship laws can be dangerous, but it realistically just strikes me as the lesser evil. You evidently can't just let that stuff openly fester, but I simply can't imagine a situation where the government would suppress 'good' speech but a company with equal power wouldn't.
I suppose you used the same logic with arab spring, hong kong, belarus... They are literally doing/did an insurrection and even killed their leader in some cases (Gaddafi).
You're comparing Gaddafi, who was a dictator committing genocide against his own people -- including with chemical weapons -- to the election of Joe Biden?
You've lost it...
You've lost it...
Read up on Section 230 and why it was passed, the whole point of it is that what you're arguing is unworkable and massively stifling innovation. ISPs aren't responsible for what it's users do.
The funny thing is that Section 230 was added to _encourage_ moderation as part of the Communications Decency Act.
The historical context is that prior to 230, imperfect moderation would be used as proof that a service could moderate but chose not to. This created an incentive to architecturally design systems in a way that made moderation impossible (or at least strongly encouraged services to pretend moderation was impossible). So Congress enacted Section 230, so partial moderation wouldn't be turned against you.
Kind of funny in this context. But attempts at moderation, even bad ones, are very much in line with the history of the bill. And of course, we're talking about AWS's private right to associate with whom they want, not government action. 230 doesn't really enter into it except as a metaphor of sorts.
The historical context is that prior to 230, imperfect moderation would be used as proof that a service could moderate but chose not to. This created an incentive to architecturally design systems in a way that made moderation impossible (or at least strongly encouraged services to pretend moderation was impossible). So Congress enacted Section 230, so partial moderation wouldn't be turned against you.
Kind of funny in this context. But attempts at moderation, even bad ones, are very much in line with the history of the bill. And of course, we're talking about AWS's private right to associate with whom they want, not government action. 230 doesn't really enter into it except as a metaphor of sorts.
[deleted]
ISPs are not legally responsible under under the communications decency act. That doesn't make them completely immune to legal consequences. For example, Section 230 definitely doesn't supercede an NSL.
Invoking it also doesn't let you reclaim a DoD contract you lost, or restore public opinion of your company.
(also, protip for trying to convince anybody of anything: don't start out with an assumption that the person you're talking to is ignorant. Replying with "read up on..." is always insulting)
Invoking it also doesn't let you reclaim a DoD contract you lost, or restore public opinion of your company.
(also, protip for trying to convince anybody of anything: don't start out with an assumption that the person you're talking to is ignorant. Replying with "read up on..." is always insulting)
IANAL, but ...
Section 230 says that ISPs are not treated as the publisher or speaker of what their users publish or say. That does not mean that prosecutors cannot try to find companies criminally responsible for allowing users to post illegal content on their platforms, especially if they have knowledge of such content. See Backpage. And even if the companies win, the battle itself is quite damaging.
Furthermore, Section 230 says nothing about how the court of public opinion will treat the provider. These companies are thinking about more than just the legal repercussions. If their business suffers because people do not want to do work with companies that support this kind of content, then all the Section 230 protections in the world will not bring in revenue.
Section 230 says that ISPs are not treated as the publisher or speaker of what their users publish or say. That does not mean that prosecutors cannot try to find companies criminally responsible for allowing users to post illegal content on their platforms, especially if they have knowledge of such content. See Backpage. And even if the companies win, the battle itself is quite damaging.
Furthermore, Section 230 says nothing about how the court of public opinion will treat the provider. These companies are thinking about more than just the legal repercussions. If their business suffers because people do not want to do work with companies that support this kind of content, then all the Section 230 protections in the world will not bring in revenue.
Parler is removing illegal content and encouragement of violence, they've just been unable to completely do so due to massive growth. They're not like Backpage at all in that regard (and that verdict was harmful regardless). All the violent parleys Amazon mentioned are from nobodies and they have barely any upvotes.
You're right with the second paragraph though, in the US de-facto monopolistic companies are allowed to discriminate their customers regardless of public interest. Visa and Mastercard is allowed to ban Wikileaks from receiving any donations at all (thank God for cryptocurrencies) since they posted info about war crimes and Amazon is allowed to ban social networks that doesn't fact check.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be that way. Public interests needs some protection, even though companies are the suppliers.
You're right with the second paragraph though, in the US de-facto monopolistic companies are allowed to discriminate their customers regardless of public interest. Visa and Mastercard is allowed to ban Wikileaks from receiving any donations at all (thank God for cryptocurrencies) since they posted info about war crimes and Amazon is allowed to ban social networks that doesn't fact check.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be that way. Public interests needs some protection, even though companies are the suppliers.
This also opens up a really simple attack vector for taking down a competitor.
A recipe: 1) Create a bunch of accounts on your competitor's platform. 2) Post awful things using those accounts. 3) Screenshot them as proof that said competitor isn't taking moderation seriously. Make sure to do this before the posts are flagged/downvoted. 4) Send screenshots to all of the vendors that supply services to your competitor.
Voila, competition problem solved.
A recipe: 1) Create a bunch of accounts on your competitor's platform. 2) Post awful things using those accounts. 3) Screenshot them as proof that said competitor isn't taking moderation seriously. Make sure to do this before the posts are flagged/downvoted. 4) Send screenshots to all of the vendors that supply services to your competitor.
Voila, competition problem solved.
To put it on even footing with the current Parler scenario, add this one:
5) Hire a mob and storm the capital of the United States in an act of sedition, linking the planning and encouraging of the attack to your competitor's platform.
5) Hire a mob and storm the capital of the United States in an act of sedition, linking the planning and encouraging of the attack to your competitor's platform.
Or,
6) Hire a mob and storm the Federal Courthouse building in Portland?
I don't blame Twitter, the company for what happened in Portland this summer, which is sort of the entire point of Section 230 protections. I don't like Twitter or Parler or Gab or Facebook for what they've done to civil discourse, but that doesn't mean I think any of them should get their hosting yanked for it.
In fact, it will almost certainly make things worse. All of the attacks on 4chan and 8chan over the years only served to make them more popular - it's like people have amnesia about the Streisand effect.
I don't blame Twitter, the company for what happened in Portland this summer, which is sort of the entire point of Section 230 protections. I don't like Twitter or Parler or Gab or Facebook for what they've done to civil discourse, but that doesn't mean I think any of them should get their hosting yanked for it.
In fact, it will almost certainly make things worse. All of the attacks on 4chan and 8chan over the years only served to make them more popular - it's like people have amnesia about the Streisand effect.
You can't "slippery slope" when the quoted email makes it pretty clear that Amazon has outlined specific and clear problems that Parler has refused to address. Unless your business is being used to post hate messages, including explicit threats to kill people, your concern is unwarranted.
If it is, well, then you should probably reasonably actually be concerned about AWS shutting you down.
If it is, well, then you should probably reasonably actually be concerned about AWS shutting you down.
[deleted]
there is first amendment precedent for shutting down speech that incites violence. why is that not enough here?
Because that's for the court to do not the platform.
so why engage the platform at all? seems like the courts could easily be tasked with dealing with this.
spaginal(4)
Why would you assume that Amazon is only ever going to stick to that? It's a self-imposed set of rules. What's stopping them from just changing the rules if they want to e.g. block sites critical of how they treat their workers?
They don't need to change the rules. AWS can already terminate you at any point. In this case, they've very much not explicitly done that, and instead have given Parler warnings and clear requests to take specific actions to prevent their account from being terminated.
Parler has decided not to cooperate, and Amazon is taking the next step, which is terminating that relationship.
Amazon is a business, and can choose to do business with just about anyone they'd like, based on their stated terms. This isn't some weird turning point, and in fact, the email provided shows that Amazon isn't making this decision out of nowhere.
Parler has decided not to cooperate, and Amazon is taking the next step, which is terminating that relationship.
Amazon is a business, and can choose to do business with just about anyone they'd like, based on their stated terms. This isn't some weird turning point, and in fact, the email provided shows that Amazon isn't making this decision out of nowhere.
>They don't need to change the rules. AWS can already terminate you at any point
That is literally my point, the 'rules' don't matter. The post that I responded to claimed that somehow there was no slippery slope here because they have rules after all.
>Amazon is a business, and can choose to do business with just about anyone they'd like
Well, that's how it currently is, but this doesn't apply to all businesses. An electric provider can't just cut you off because they don't like you, maybe it'd be a good idea to implement something similar for services that provide equally critical digital infrastructure?
That is literally my point, the 'rules' don't matter. The post that I responded to claimed that somehow there was no slippery slope here because they have rules after all.
>Amazon is a business, and can choose to do business with just about anyone they'd like
Well, that's how it currently is, but this doesn't apply to all businesses. An electric provider can't just cut you off because they don't like you, maybe it'd be a good idea to implement something similar for services that provide equally critical digital infrastructure?
Is someone assuming that? It’s perfectly normal to approve of AWS banning Parler while reserving the right to disapprove of AWS banning some other service. I’m very confused by this mode of argument “if we ever let any company perform any action that’s a slippery slope because what if they perform other actions???”
Nothing is stopping them from changing their rules. But if they change their rules from something good to something bad, one simply changes one’s opinion of their rules.
Nothing is stopping them from changing their rules. But if they change their rules from something good to something bad, one simply changes one’s opinion of their rules.
What? This isn't about whether rules are good, they said that the rules prevent a slippery slope, which is obviously bunk.
So, your argument is "AWS told a service that it needed to stop hosting death threats, the service didn't comply with that request, and AWS terminated the service... therefore they're going to shut down everyone they don't like"
You pole vaulted right over the slippery slope there.
You pole vaulted right over the slippery slope there.
No, not 'they're going to', but it's possible that it may happen and the fact that people don't care and just shrug this off (or even say that this is how it should be!) scares me.
Nothing is stopping them nor was anything stopping them before. So this changes nothing except for Parker and the people using it.
So lay out your theory of things should work and be prepared to defend it. It's easy to just ask questions and never make any positive proposals.
Do you expect me to copy paste a full proposal under every single comment?
But I'll indulge you: Regulate these companies like public utility. Make laws that specify which content is not allowed (e.g. no hateful content, or whatever) and let the courts be the arbiter.
But I'll indulge you: Regulate these companies like public utility. Make laws that specify which content is not allowed (e.g. no hateful content, or whatever) and let the courts be the arbiter.
Yes, the fact that they’re allowed to make business decisions about their own platforms and freely associate is the bedrock of capitalism. Read the fine print. Plan accordingly.
It's not hard to make an argument that referring to Amazon warehouse employees as slaves is violent speech, for example.
For example Twitter argued [1] that Trumps statement of "75 million American patriots" could refer to the hundreds of Capitol rioters and that his statement of him not attending the inauguration, which Biden supports btw, was a signal that it's a safe target to attack.
[1] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
For example Twitter argued [1] that Trumps statement of "75 million American patriots" could refer to the hundreds of Capitol rioters and that his statement of him not attending the inauguration, which Biden supports btw, was a signal that it's a safe target to attack.
[1] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
>You can't "slippery slope" when the quoted email makes it pretty clear that Amazon has outlined specific and clear problems that Parler has refused to address
Sure you can. Even if some of the circumstances will be different, it seems pretty obvious that this did not happen because of the simple facts in evidence regarding Parler, but because of the broader context that a lot of people were beginning to try to pressure Amazon to drop Parler. One could easily envision how this could also be successful in future cancellation campaigns - if a company makes a mob outraged and the company isn't going to reform on its own, then one can naturally escalate the deplatforming effort by going after any company-related apps or service providers. Do we really think this isn't going to happen absent a riot? We already have the rhetorical justification: "This is just private actors showing you the door."
Sure you can. Even if some of the circumstances will be different, it seems pretty obvious that this did not happen because of the simple facts in evidence regarding Parler, but because of the broader context that a lot of people were beginning to try to pressure Amazon to drop Parler. One could easily envision how this could also be successful in future cancellation campaigns - if a company makes a mob outraged and the company isn't going to reform on its own, then one can naturally escalate the deplatforming effort by going after any company-related apps or service providers. Do we really think this isn't going to happen absent a riot? We already have the rhetorical justification: "This is just private actors showing you the door."
Again, you cannot claim a slippery slope when Amazon has made clear, and explicit asks of Parler that they have /refused/ to engage with.
Parler does not want to moderate their platform of violent rhetoric, because their customer base is there to engage in violent rhetoric. If you think Parler should have the right to allow their users to continue to threaten violence to people, well, that's still not a slippery slope, because there is no precedent being set here other than "Amazon will not allow unmoderated calls for violence on their platform."
Amazon always will, and always has, had the ability to terminate users for just about any reason. This is not them doing that, since they've provided a clear solution for Parler which is "stop allowing your users to make violent threats", and they've provided apparently an abundance of examples. Examples which Parler has not taken action against.
Parler does not want to moderate their platform of violent rhetoric, because their customer base is there to engage in violent rhetoric. If you think Parler should have the right to allow their users to continue to threaten violence to people, well, that's still not a slippery slope, because there is no precedent being set here other than "Amazon will not allow unmoderated calls for violence on their platform."
Amazon always will, and always has, had the ability to terminate users for just about any reason. This is not them doing that, since they've provided a clear solution for Parler which is "stop allowing your users to make violent threats", and they've provided apparently an abundance of examples. Examples which Parler has not taken action against.
For that to happen, you first have to be in violation of your contract like Parler was. They were in violation of the AWS AUP.
For many services with millions of users, if you keep your head down, it can take them quite a while to notice you're in violation of your contract... but yes, if you make a bunch of people angry, one of those people is going to notice you're on AWS, pull up the AWS AUP that's published right on their website, see that you're in violation and report you.
This should be obvious to everyone. The AUP is not a confidential agreement.. and everyone can see where your server is hosted.
For many services with millions of users, if you keep your head down, it can take them quite a while to notice you're in violation of your contract... but yes, if you make a bunch of people angry, one of those people is going to notice you're on AWS, pull up the AWS AUP that's published right on their website, see that you're in violation and report you.
This should be obvious to everyone. The AUP is not a confidential agreement.. and everyone can see where your server is hosted.
> In an email obtained by BuzzFeed News, an Amazon Web Services (AWS) Trust and Safety team told Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff that the calls for violence propagating across Parler violated its terms of service and that Amazon is unconvinced that the service’s plan to use volunteers to moderate such things will be effective.
The article seems to suggest that it's calls for violence that have violated its ToS (presumably agreed upon at time of hosting or earlier).
> it seems pretty obvious that this did not happen because of the simple facts in evidence regarding Parler, but because of the broader context that a lot of people were beginning to try to pressure Amazon to drop Parler.
So I don't see how what you say is indeed obvious, since Amazon's relationship to Parler suffice to explain the termination, absent any public sentiment or pressure.
Perhaps your argument would be bolstered if you can provide an example of a service with similar volume of calls to violence that has not yet been booted off.
The article seems to suggest that it's calls for violence that have violated its ToS (presumably agreed upon at time of hosting or earlier).
> it seems pretty obvious that this did not happen because of the simple facts in evidence regarding Parler, but because of the broader context that a lot of people were beginning to try to pressure Amazon to drop Parler.
So I don't see how what you say is indeed obvious, since Amazon's relationship to Parler suffice to explain the termination, absent any public sentiment or pressure.
Perhaps your argument would be bolstered if you can provide an example of a service with similar volume of calls to violence that has not yet been booted off.
Yes, if you get too many people mad at you, you're going to have a bad time no matter how just your cause. In some cases we've decided as a society to protect people who might get a lot of anger directed at them through no fault of their own, like because of their race or sexuality. I doubt we're going to extend those protections to include people who incite violence, but maybe we can extend them in other ways as appropriate to make sure people aren't undeservedly deplatformed.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> if a company makes a mob outraged and the company isn't going to reform on its own, then one can naturally escalate the deplatforming effort by going after any company-related apps or service providers.
That's capitalism in action. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's capitalism in action. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Pretty much anyone with any intelligence can determine this, in particular, is harmful to society. This situation isn't just "someone bad saying nice things" and to suggest that is completely disingenuous.
I've looked at Parler - while I don't find the content at all compelling, it doesn't seem any more dangerous than Twitter. Have we forgotten the truly odious content that was freely available on Twitter during last summer's riots?
Most people here already have instantly forgotten about the planned action of millions of dollars worth of damage and looting of businesses and federal buildings that were burned down during the summer riots with BLM and Antifa inciting violence during the run up to the elections last year which the content is still freely available on Twitter with it being hosted on AWS.
So I do not see how Twitter is any different to Parler here if I can still find both of this content (and the users responsible) on their platforms. Perhaps the moderation on Twitter has a bias to one camp or its users have a heavy bias to only reporting the content that they think 'violates the ToS'.
The fact is, both social networking sites here have this content hosted on AWS and either have a poor or a bias in moderation of this content.
So I do not see how Twitter is any different to Parler here if I can still find both of this content (and the users responsible) on their platforms. Perhaps the moderation on Twitter has a bias to one camp or its users have a heavy bias to only reporting the content that they think 'violates the ToS'.
The fact is, both social networking sites here have this content hosted on AWS and either have a poor or a bias in moderation of this content.
I can't speak for everyone, but I haven't forgotten about those things and was arguing at the time that much of that rhetoric needed to be shut down. I do wish that internet platforms would consistently shut down everyone who plans violence, but I'm hardly gonna say that this violence should be allowed just because other kinds were allowed in the past.
To resolve this whataboutism, I'd be perfectly fine with banning Twitter until they improved their moderation practices. But it's whataboutism nevertheless, no?
Amazon made the decision to change that calculation and in this case, whataboutism is perfectly valid.
I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion when Parler has been specifically used to plan more violence this week, after many of the people involved have been booted from Twitter.
And Twitter (along with Reddit and Facebook) wasn’t used to plan violence during the protests last summer?
Show us the BLM tweet equivalent of "We need to systematically start assassinating Liberal leaders"
well... there's a #killallcops. I'm sure a quick googling could find you plenty more.. : https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallcops?lang=en
Would you consider that hashtag to have serious intent to incite people to commit acts of violence?
The same level of seriousness as any other violence condoning call. In that its hard to gauge intent and willingness to follow through vs. “just saying it”..? where do you draw the line? Do you let one group call for un mitigated violence against a group of people, but not another group, just because you personally dont believe they are serious, even if it might inspire other to take action..?
Yes, context is important. If someone makes a call to violence that is not intended to be taken seriously and is not at risk of being taken seriously that is different from making a call to violence in the hope that someone picks it up at a time when people are likely to act on it.
There is a test for this decided at the supreme court level: inciteful speech can only be prohibited if the speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action."
There is a test for this decided at the supreme court level: inciteful speech can only be prohibited if the speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action."
[deleted]
The summer violence is not equitable to what's being planned on Parler. This is not run of the mill shit going on.
People are literally planning to murder other people on Parler but you don't find the content compelling ? There are tons of posts like this on Parler. This isnt a slippery slope, they arent moderating at all
https://twitter.com/IntelDoge/status/1348099918381068289
https://twitter.com/IntelDoge/status/1348099918381068289
[deleted]
One major difference though, is that Parler (right now) only really hosts said dangerous content, while Twitter is >99% innocent.
Twitter and facebook have troves of child porn. They should be absolved and permanently wiped from the interner
Parler sprang up as a reaction to widespread deplatforming of both mainstream conservatives and violent radicals. What this achieves in practice is giving violent extremists a platform where they're free to radicalize ("redpill") moderate conservatives who've even been primed (via deplatforming) to distrust mainstream media and seek alternate sources of information. It's the opposite of what you want if you care about re-unifying the political landscape around rejection of violent extremism.
Can you give an example of a mainstream conservative who didn't advocate for violence who was deplatformed?
I think the best plan of action is creating a new decentralized free speech platform, as resilient as a cockroach, blockchain or scihub.
I’ve sent a message to sama & pg asking to add this to the YC list of ‘requests for startups’. I hope they hear.
For those lurking, this is a tremendous opportunity and real need as you have half the country desperate to let their voice be heard while being aggressively silenced and de-platformed for political reasons.
You can have a monopoly on free speech.. just kidding , purely decentralized. Hit me up with your hot ideas and Go chops.
I’ve sent a message to sama & pg asking to add this to the YC list of ‘requests for startups’. I hope they hear.
For those lurking, this is a tremendous opportunity and real need as you have half the country desperate to let their voice be heard while being aggressively silenced and de-platformed for political reasons.
You can have a monopoly on free speech.. just kidding , purely decentralized. Hit me up with your hot ideas and Go chops.
I disagree with this. This might be a solution, but it is not "the" solution.
I really, truly believe that any startup idea has to pass the child pornography test. Most B2C companies have to deal with this at some point if they allow user to user interaction.
A decentralized platform as advocated for could not survive if it's not capable of censuring things. You have to censure for child pornography--it's illegal to host it. Court actions around torrents have held that the sites hosting them are not decentralized--The Pirate Bay is at fault for hosting illegally obtained content. Same thing with this--as long as hosting child pornography is illegal (and it should be, not debating that) you won't have a mainstream "decentralized" social media site[0].
This follows for all the other stuff that's going on. Inciting violence is illegal. That, plain and simple, is why Trump was removed from Twitter. Twitter even waited until his violence actually killed people. Even Parler recognizes this[1] and has started censuring, because it could be sued into the ground for inciting violence. If you think that there's a technological solution for this problem--you're missing the bigger picture. Big social media tech _loves_ this stuff--people talk about it all day--they even donate to the groups that help organize it[2].
We're not missing a technological solution--we're missing a legislative one.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/02/parler-...
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/09/parler-reportedly-removed-...
[2] https://documented.net/2021/01/republican-attorneys-general-...
I really, truly believe that any startup idea has to pass the child pornography test. Most B2C companies have to deal with this at some point if they allow user to user interaction.
A decentralized platform as advocated for could not survive if it's not capable of censuring things. You have to censure for child pornography--it's illegal to host it. Court actions around torrents have held that the sites hosting them are not decentralized--The Pirate Bay is at fault for hosting illegally obtained content. Same thing with this--as long as hosting child pornography is illegal (and it should be, not debating that) you won't have a mainstream "decentralized" social media site[0].
This follows for all the other stuff that's going on. Inciting violence is illegal. That, plain and simple, is why Trump was removed from Twitter. Twitter even waited until his violence actually killed people. Even Parler recognizes this[1] and has started censuring, because it could be sued into the ground for inciting violence. If you think that there's a technological solution for this problem--you're missing the bigger picture. Big social media tech _loves_ this stuff--people talk about it all day--they even donate to the groups that help organize it[2].
We're not missing a technological solution--we're missing a legislative one.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/02/parler-...
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/09/parler-reportedly-removed-...
[2] https://documented.net/2021/01/republican-attorneys-general-...
You make some good points. I want to reply to a couple of them.
I like the idea of a decentralized platform, but I agree that the solution has to be a legislative one. What's being lost is the "national conversation" on the subject and now private companies are deciding for everyone. Billions of people are now being told they don't get to decide how they interact with society; instead, literally a few people are deciding on behalf of billions. There is very little way to spin that as a positive result. This is what democracy is literally for - "we all decide together what we want the rules to be". I'm... honestly so saddened to see that people can't see that.
If "the people" decide, and what's happening now is what everyone votes for? Great! I may not like it but at least we know that we used good means since the means determine the ends. Right now, the means we are using is literally corporations acting as governments - making decisions for billions.
Re: idea has to pass the child porn test: agree. There's a few others too like illegal incitement etc. A platform needs a meaningful way to detect and remove this (not only because the law requires it, but this is a protective measure to ensure everyone gets to interact on that platform instead of it just disappearing).
I like the idea of a decentralized platform, but I agree that the solution has to be a legislative one. What's being lost is the "national conversation" on the subject and now private companies are deciding for everyone. Billions of people are now being told they don't get to decide how they interact with society; instead, literally a few people are deciding on behalf of billions. There is very little way to spin that as a positive result. This is what democracy is literally for - "we all decide together what we want the rules to be". I'm... honestly so saddened to see that people can't see that.
If "the people" decide, and what's happening now is what everyone votes for? Great! I may not like it but at least we know that we used good means since the means determine the ends. Right now, the means we are using is literally corporations acting as governments - making decisions for billions.
Re: idea has to pass the child porn test: agree. There's a few others too like illegal incitement etc. A platform needs a meaningful way to detect and remove this (not only because the law requires it, but this is a protective measure to ensure everyone gets to interact on that platform instead of it just disappearing).
This comment does not deserve to be downvoted. A decentralized platform ensuring people can communicate with who they want is a net positive for society.
If this is something you're interested in, I am as well.
If this is something you're interested in, I am as well.
Mainstream conservatives haven't been deplatformed. That's just the prevailing excuse for why many of them radicalized.
> Mainstream conservatives haven't been deplatformed.
But clearly, they have been. 74 million Americans voted for President Trump in the recent election, and now a bunch of techies in California are unilaterally saying that they shouldn't have a platform, and giving their support to the other side of the political spectrum. This doesn't look good for the average Republican or Conservative.
But clearly, they have been. 74 million Americans voted for President Trump in the recent election, and now a bunch of techies in California are unilaterally saying that they shouldn't have a platform, and giving their support to the other side of the political spectrum. This doesn't look good for the average Republican or Conservative.
Hiding dangerous content amongst innocent content is even more egregious. It's much easier to identify and deal with when it's out in the open.
Twitter also has a much larger audience to push hate and violence to.
Twitter also has a much larger audience to push hate and violence to.
Is it still available today?
If it has since been removed, that's due to moderation!
If it has since been removed, that's due to moderation!
What about right now?
"Hang Mike Pence" has been trending lately. I don't like anyone promoting violence.
"Hang Mike Pence" has been trending lately. I don't like anyone promoting violence.
And stuff like #killallmen and #killallcops was trending for months, but nobody banned Twitter from their infrastructure.
So you signed up for Parler and gave them your drivers license?
That's only if you want to be verified (i.e. like a blue checkmark on Twitter).
I installed it long ago to see what all the fuss was and never used it and didn't give them a damn thing.
I installed it long ago to see what all the fuss was and never used it and didn't give them a damn thing.
>Pretty much anyone with any intelligence can determine this
This seems to be another way of saying 'if you don't agree with this view, you are likely stupid'. That's not a great opening, and in general if one finds themselves thinking their view is the only intelligent one, they should consider it a sign they are only considering a strawman of alternatives and not the real views held.
This seems to be another way of saying 'if you don't agree with this view, you are likely stupid'. That's not a great opening, and in general if one finds themselves thinking their view is the only intelligent one, they should consider it a sign they are only considering a strawman of alternatives and not the real views held.
I think them getting booted is a slippery slope. Much better to have things like this in plain sight. Think about how much harder it would be to identify people storming the capitol w/o their social media platforms... Either way, it's great when "they" are harmful to society. I'm not so sure it's not possible to end up on the wrong side of that gun down the road when "they" define "harmful"...
I'm also curious as to what AWS's stance is regarding ISIS or radical militants in other regions of the world. I genuinely don't know the answer here.
I'm also curious as to what AWS's stance is regarding ISIS or radical militants in other regions of the world. I genuinely don't know the answer here.
I'm pretty sure they can't legally do business with ISIS.
These groups are only able to organize and recruit at this scale because of these platforms.
The question is not if Amazon made the right decision in this case but if they can be trusted to make it in general.
[deleted]
Exactly because right now, between Apple, Google and AWS, several billion people have had a decision made for them.
That looks like government behavior to me.
That looks like government behavior to me.
> So AWS is now the arbiter of what actions are supposedly harmful to the fabric of democratic society?
No, everybody is. In a democratic society, it is the responsibility of every citizen and corporation to act in accordance with democratic values.
At the end of the day, democracies aren't built out of laws written on paper -- they're built on the everyday decisions people take such as voting, arguing over issues, and condemning non-democratic bad actors.
Just as people can protest in the streets against undemocratic abuses of power, so corporate entities can and should deplatform people and organizations that explicitly, violently threaten our democracy.
It's up to every person and corporation to be their own arbiter. That's the ultimate safeguard of democracy.
If AWS waited for a court order, it could very well be too late.
No, everybody is. In a democratic society, it is the responsibility of every citizen and corporation to act in accordance with democratic values.
At the end of the day, democracies aren't built out of laws written on paper -- they're built on the everyday decisions people take such as voting, arguing over issues, and condemning non-democratic bad actors.
Just as people can protest in the streets against undemocratic abuses of power, so corporate entities can and should deplatform people and organizations that explicitly, violently threaten our democracy.
It's up to every person and corporation to be their own arbiter. That's the ultimate safeguard of democracy.
If AWS waited for a court order, it could very well be too late.
> No, everybody is. In a democratic society, it is the responsibility of every citizen and corporation to act in accordance with democratic values.
Exactly, everybody is. In a democratic society, everybody decides together what the rules for things like this are, not 2-3 tech CEOs.
I say, draft laws around this and let the people vote on them. Then at least we'd have some basis for doing things like this.
Exactly, everybody is. In a democratic society, everybody decides together what the rules for things like this are, not 2-3 tech CEOs.
I say, draft laws around this and let the people vote on them. Then at least we'd have some basis for doing things like this.
The exact same argument could be applied regarding free speech, mind.
While the government is the only entity /legally bound/ to not restrict speech, it is also untenable to have a government that cannot touch it presiding over an oligarchy of corporations that are wholly censorious. If free speech is critical to a democratic society (which it is), it is necessary that corporations do what they can to uphold it.
While the government is the only entity /legally bound/ to not restrict speech, it is also untenable to have a government that cannot touch it presiding over an oligarchy of corporations that are wholly censorious. If free speech is critical to a democratic society (which it is), it is necessary that corporations do what they can to uphold it.
The actual solution is to not allow the existence of enormously powerful mega-corporations. The problem is that we have these companies, each able to influence hundreds of millions to billions of people with virtually no accountability. Facebook and its subsidiaries comprise the most far-reaching media apparatus in history, and the whole thing is under the control of a guy. The same is largely true of Amazon. We shouldn't have let this happen.
Yes they are (arbiter of what action they can take) if you use their platform to call for murdering and lynching people. Did you read the article and see the screenshots AWS sent to Parler?
AWS is now and always has been the arbiter of what they allow on their platform. Parler agrees to the terms of service, just like any other AWS customer. Also, providers have to police their customers - they don't want 'wrongful death' lawsuits, for instance.
As for you other concerns, the conventional wisdom around HN is "Don't build your business on third party infrastructure/services". If they close your account because 'a bad person says nice things' about you, or just because they don't like your face, that's a known risk. There a numerous examples of cloud providers (especially google) shutting down accounts. Its nothing new, and should be accounted for in your business plan.
As for you other concerns, the conventional wisdom around HN is "Don't build your business on third party infrastructure/services". If they close your account because 'a bad person says nice things' about you, or just because they don't like your face, that's a known risk. There a numerous examples of cloud providers (especially google) shutting down accounts. Its nothing new, and should be accounted for in your business plan.
So AWS is now the arbiter of what actions are supposedly harmful to the fabric of democratic society?
It'd be great if people could move past these extremely cliche arguments and start addressing substantive ones instead of living in some theoretical free speech bubble where a meritocracy of ideas and the superiority of truth are assumed as implicit, without regard to real-world experience.
It'd be great if people could move past these extremely cliche arguments and start addressing substantive ones instead of living in some theoretical free speech bubble where a meritocracy of ideas and the superiority of truth are assumed as implicit, without regard to real-world experience.
Parler is in violation of the AWS AUP that they agreed to when they signed up. That's why they included posts from Parler that called for violence.. because that's a prohibited use of AWS. https://aws.amazon.com/aup/
If you are violating their AUP, you should be concerned they might cut you off.
If you disagree that those posts called for violence, I'd like to see the mental gymnastics you come up with.
If you are violating their AUP, you should be concerned they might cut you off.
If you disagree that those posts called for violence, I'd like to see the mental gymnastics you come up with.
which part? " may be harmful to others" ? This is a clause so broad as to cover nearly all speech.
Businesses can refuse service for any reason unless it's a reason prohibited by law. It is annoying that terms of service have broad sweeping language on prohibited uses but it is impossible to list every possible scenario.
[deleted]
> what if they unilaterally decide one day that our business is politically unacceptable because a bad person says nice things about us?
That's not a great analogy. It's more like a banquet hall agreeing to host a far-right rally, which in turn causes the hall's caterer to sever all ties to the hall.
That's not a great analogy. It's more like a banquet hall agreeing to host a far-right rally, which in turn causes the hall's caterer to sever all ties to the hall.
I think it's the organised violence in particular this time.
But to your broader point, either AWS is a privately operated company or it's public infrastructure, I don't believe it can be both. There is absolutely nothing stopping the owners of Parler from running their own servers either.
I think you are right that they will move to more fringe parts of the web, but I think that is just how regular society works. A society holds some values, and if you don't hold those same values within a certain margin or actively work against them in this case (non-violence), that society pushes you to the fringes.
But to your broader point, either AWS is a privately operated company or it's public infrastructure, I don't believe it can be both. There is absolutely nothing stopping the owners of Parler from running their own servers either.
I think you are right that they will move to more fringe parts of the web, but I think that is just how regular society works. A society holds some values, and if you don't hold those same values within a certain margin or actively work against them in this case (non-violence), that society pushes you to the fringes.
Did you read your contract terms with AWS?
I’d suggest reviewing section 1.4 of the service terms (https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/) and the AUP (https://aws.amazon.com/aup/)
In any business, your conduct is meaningful. If you decided to start facilitating a white supremacist insurrection, my company’s standard terms allow termination, and we would.
I’d suggest reviewing section 1.4 of the service terms (https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/) and the AUP (https://aws.amazon.com/aup/)
In any business, your conduct is meaningful. If you decided to start facilitating a white supremacist insurrection, my company’s standard terms allow termination, and we would.
> So AWS is now the arbiter of what actions are supposedly harmful to the fabric of democratic society?
No. AWS asserts the right to deny access to its infrastructure for violation of its terms of service, and the right to determine what those terms of service are.
I think this is an opportunity for someone else to sell infrastructure with zero content restrictions. There is clearly a market.
No. AWS asserts the right to deny access to its infrastructure for violation of its terms of service, and the right to determine what those terms of service are.
I think this is an opportunity for someone else to sell infrastructure with zero content restrictions. There is clearly a market.
AWS has the right to decide with whom they would like to do business. Parler is free to migrate to a competitor.
> So AWS is now the arbiter of what actions are supposedly harmful to the fabric of democratic society? It's one thing for the courts to do this, it's quite another for infrastructure providers to decide it's now their job to police their customers.
Infrastructure providers have already decided they get to police their customers, eg. cloudflare dropping stormfront or other white supremacists as customers.
EDIT: To be clear I agree it is entirely worrying that infrastructure that takes up a significant amount of the known internet is under the control of a large corporation that can seemingly decide to boot people for violations of terms of service. I just want to disagree that this is new. It's not new. It's old and well-established by now. If we want to change this, it'll have to be through a law.
Infrastructure providers have already decided they get to police their customers, eg. cloudflare dropping stormfront or other white supremacists as customers.
EDIT: To be clear I agree it is entirely worrying that infrastructure that takes up a significant amount of the known internet is under the control of a large corporation that can seemingly decide to boot people for violations of terms of service. I just want to disagree that this is new. It's not new. It's old and well-established by now. If we want to change this, it'll have to be through a law.
> So AWS is now the arbiter of what actions are supposedly harmful to the fabric of democratic society?
No, there are other hosts. But... is it really so wrong to be glad that someone is trying to arbitrate this? Parler was a persistent host to exactly the kind of violent rhetoric that turned into Wednesday's coup. At some point we have to make a call and shut stuff like that down, right?
I mean, yes, it sucks that the overlap between "conventional republican politics" and "rhetoric inspiring real life violence" is so high. So surely there is some friendly fire here on speech we'd like to keep. But... I don't see why Amazon should be responsible for letting this fester like it has either.
No, there are other hosts. But... is it really so wrong to be glad that someone is trying to arbitrate this? Parler was a persistent host to exactly the kind of violent rhetoric that turned into Wednesday's coup. At some point we have to make a call and shut stuff like that down, right?
I mean, yes, it sucks that the overlap between "conventional republican politics" and "rhetoric inspiring real life violence" is so high. So surely there is some friendly fire here on speech we'd like to keep. But... I don't see why Amazon should be responsible for letting this fester like it has either.
Maybe it's better that the discussions are happening where they can be seen? The other half of the problem on Wednesday was how unprepared and weakly defended the Capitol was, in light of all this planning was going on on Parler.
If it had been happening on GPG-encrypted email, would that be better?
If it had been happening on GPG-encrypted email, would that be better?
I don't think there was any problem with the intelligence side of things. We knew the mob was going to be there because they were attendees at a rally organized by the president for the express purpose of pressuring congress. And we knew the rhetoric around this had been violent going back months.
As far as the honeypot idea: I guess you have to balance that against the danger that these communities will fester and grow. To be blunt: Parler isn't a planning tool for Serious Terrorists, it's a casual internet feed for people who aren't sophisicated enough to use encrypted email or Signal.
The danger to Parler isn't that it's a place for a tight team to plan an overthrow of the government, it's a place for millions of MAGA fans to be convinced that overthrowing the government is a good thing.
As far as the honeypot idea: I guess you have to balance that against the danger that these communities will fester and grow. To be blunt: Parler isn't a planning tool for Serious Terrorists, it's a casual internet feed for people who aren't sophisicated enough to use encrypted email or Signal.
The danger to Parler isn't that it's a place for a tight team to plan an overthrow of the government, it's a place for millions of MAGA fans to be convinced that overthrowing the government is a good thing.
Nope, AWS is just the arbiter of what actions they allow to be hosted on their product. Of course no one is suggesting that Amazon or any one technology company is the sole arbiter of claims about morality or legality.
I agree that we as society do not want to outsource censorship to private corporations. Despite that I still think this (namely deplatforming Parler in this moment) is a better outcome for us.
Amazon had to choose between appointing itself a censor or being complicit in fomenting violence via offering their services. Both choices suck, but that's sometimes the way cards lie.
> once people who are plotting bad things all move to end-to-end encrypted platforms like Signal it will be that much more difficult to figure out who the bad people are.
I think society's main problem here is the normalization of conspiratorial thinking and the radicalization that ensues. People have always been able to plot in secret and I'm not worried about law enforcement hypothetically being unable to monitor all wrong-thinkers thoughts in real time.
In some respects I think this recent spate of censorious actions (Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter) could be the ideal outcome in that they've always had the implicit power to censor and the public has pretty much shrugged. If society is now forced to reckon with how much of public life it has ceded to Mr. Zuckerberg's whims all the better. If decentralization comes to the web, and tech monopolies and oligopolies are cracked open to competition I will shed no tears.
Amazon had to choose between appointing itself a censor or being complicit in fomenting violence via offering their services. Both choices suck, but that's sometimes the way cards lie.
> once people who are plotting bad things all move to end-to-end encrypted platforms like Signal it will be that much more difficult to figure out who the bad people are.
I think society's main problem here is the normalization of conspiratorial thinking and the radicalization that ensues. People have always been able to plot in secret and I'm not worried about law enforcement hypothetically being unable to monitor all wrong-thinkers thoughts in real time.
In some respects I think this recent spate of censorious actions (Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter) could be the ideal outcome in that they've always had the implicit power to censor and the public has pretty much shrugged. If society is now forced to reckon with how much of public life it has ceded to Mr. Zuckerberg's whims all the better. If decentralization comes to the web, and tech monopolies and oligopolies are cracked open to competition I will shed no tears.
>I agree that we as society do not want to outsource censorship to private corporations
This is how the US has worked for at least 100 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_fil...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_Advisory
From just off the top of my head
This is how the US has worked for at least 100 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_fil...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_Advisory
From just off the top of my head
While I agree as a matter of fact that these organizations exist I was asserting a preference rather than an understanding of the world as it is. I view the above list ranging from misguided to shameful stains on our history.
Further I want to draw a distinction between a rating group which certainly encourages censorship but does not have the ability or authority to carry it out and what we are seeing here. The Comics Code Authority worked by voluntary agreement of mainstream distributors and the underground comix scene immediately popped up to challenge it. The Hays code was enabled by a (IMO) bad supreme court decision and after that was overturned quickly crumbled to a more reasonable (again IMO) system of rating. The Parental Advisory labels, despite the intentions of their founders, were reduced to being audio nutritional fact boxes. Any traction they might have got was granted them by distributors like Walmart and collapsed shortly thereafter when the internet changed music distribution.
Further I want to draw a distinction between a rating group which certainly encourages censorship but does not have the ability or authority to carry it out and what we are seeing here. The Comics Code Authority worked by voluntary agreement of mainstream distributors and the underground comix scene immediately popped up to challenge it. The Hays code was enabled by a (IMO) bad supreme court decision and after that was overturned quickly crumbled to a more reasonable (again IMO) system of rating. The Parental Advisory labels, despite the intentions of their founders, were reduced to being audio nutritional fact boxes. Any traction they might have got was granted them by distributors like Walmart and collapsed shortly thereafter when the internet changed music distribution.
And I think that all provides evidence that the absolutist view that cancel culture is a grave threat to freedom of expression is largely overblown. Things change over time in unpredictable ways, as long as it's not government enforced, ideas have a way of finding their way out there. It doesn't mean we have to make it easy as a society though. There will always be ways to find extremist literature if you want. It doesn't mean as a generic business owner I have to aid and abet it.
We spend several million a year on AWS and intend to migrate as soon as possible. We’re a small drop in their bucket, but I am just done dealing with them.
Where do you think you're going to go where they don't have the same sort of policies?
I'm actually very curious to see who will be willing to accept Parler's business.
I'm actually very curious to see who will be willing to accept Parler's business.
ISPs sit behind section 230. They can’t take a political stance for shit on the wire.
The next move for Parler would be to build their own data center and buy service from ISPs.
The next move for Parler would be to build their own data center and buy service from ISPs.
Section 230 applies equally to ISPs and AWS and it does not do what you say it does. (actually AWS is an ISP)
And B2C ISPs can discriminate because Republicans, you know, ended net neutrality.
And B2C ISPs can discriminate because Republicans, you know, ended net neutrality.
Or use cloud services from companies which historically haven't played politics, many of which are ISPs as well: Verizon, ATT, IBM, etc.
Who hosts InfoWars?
It's a big world. Someone will host them.
just to clarify, your private company is choosing not to do business with AWS for political reasons?
Not OP, but it seems more reasonable to think they are choosing not to do business because they don't want to risk AWS deciding to shut them off and give them one day's notice to move their entire infrastructure.
Really, anyone using cloud providers should have at least a plan on a side burner to move to another provider if they have to. We've seen cloud accounts canceled for many reasons, including no discernable reason at at all.
absolutely agree. In this scenario though, it appears AWS and Parler were in communication for weeks prior to this according to the letter in the OP.
I see what you did there.
Please write and share a blog post to guide others looking for a more terrorism-friendly web host.
Did you read the article and some of the screenshots?
Are you ok with hosting violent content?
Are you ok with hosting violent content?
Yes, they get to be, that’s what terms of service are.
It's hard to know where to draw the line but I think we can very comfortably say that it's somewhere south of Nazi terrorists. Speech issues are tricky but even the Supreme Court doesn't think incitement is protected by the first amendment.
Should AWS host child pornography? How about a website for a terrorist site just wanting to kill people?
these are explicitly illegal activities with clearly argued jurisprudence. perhaps what parler hosted was illegal, but that should be up to a court to decide, not amazon.
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
I'm not exactly disagreeing that maybe parler should be taken to task, but amazon should not be the ones to do it. although, the historical application of the insurrection act has been incredibly political and inconsistent (the pullman strikes), so citing it as the primary reason for booting parler seems a little suspect to me.
They were literally talking about/planning on attacking the process of peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next.
I'm pretty sure you know why this cannot be tolerated.
I'm pretty sure you know why this cannot be tolerated.
I also think there's an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance from people who staunchly defend Section 230, then turn around and cite comments submitted by users as an excuse to shut down the entire platform. There's no way in hell they're able to keep up with the moderation requirements given how fast the platform must be growing right now.
I don't even like Parler, but I think this is a dangerous, dangerous precedent that will only turn up the temperature.
I don't even like Parler, but I think this is a dangerous, dangerous precedent that will only turn up the temperature.
strong agree. I don't exactly want to been seen as defending parler here. I think what amazon is doing is creating a dangerous precedent, regardless of whether parler is as odious as I've been led to believe it is.
I'm all the way against conservatives ideals but what's happening is scary.
It reminds me of news I have heard of other countries where dissidents start losing access to internet and communication channels. I remember it was in Egypt, Iran and Serbia IIRC.
Now it appears to be happening in the US, how it woul6happen in the US (corporations instead of the government)
Looking at it from outside. It deffinitely looks bad: Imagine if the same thing was happening but to the other side (it would look kind of like The handmaids tale).
It reminds me of news I have heard of other countries where dissidents start losing access to internet and communication channels. I remember it was in Egypt, Iran and Serbia IIRC.
Now it appears to be happening in the US, how it woul6happen in the US (corporations instead of the government)
Looking at it from outside. It deffinitely looks bad: Imagine if the same thing was happening but to the other side (it would look kind of like The handmaids tale).
> We rely on AWS, and now I'm thinking this is a giant mistake - what if they unilaterally decide one day that our business is politically unacceptable because a bad person says nice things about us?
You're making the argument for why this choice is not "free" for AWS. Not only do they lose a paying customer, but they cause some of their customers to debate the risks of doing business with AWS. It's precisely this balance of capital (including goodwill) that gives private companies the freedom to choose with whom they do business. Customers are the lifeblood of a business, but every one of them is also a potential liability. Every severance of a relationship with a customer carries more cost than merely the lost revenue.
So no, AWS _alone_ is not the arbiter of what actions are supposedly harmful to the fabric of democratic society -- the market for serving infrastructure is vibrant and competitive. If nobody in the market will do business with a given customer, well, that's capitalism for you.
(and just in case it wasn't clear, I applaud AWS making this choice, and hope the market at large will do the same)
You're making the argument for why this choice is not "free" for AWS. Not only do they lose a paying customer, but they cause some of their customers to debate the risks of doing business with AWS. It's precisely this balance of capital (including goodwill) that gives private companies the freedom to choose with whom they do business. Customers are the lifeblood of a business, but every one of them is also a potential liability. Every severance of a relationship with a customer carries more cost than merely the lost revenue.
So no, AWS _alone_ is not the arbiter of what actions are supposedly harmful to the fabric of democratic society -- the market for serving infrastructure is vibrant and competitive. If nobody in the market will do business with a given customer, well, that's capitalism for you.
(and just in case it wasn't clear, I applaud AWS making this choice, and hope the market at large will do the same)
[deleted]
> what if they unilaterally decide one day that our business is politically unacceptable because a bad person says nice things about us?
HN is extremely ignorant on such matters. But the truth is every hosting provider in the world does this in one way or another, as they all belong to some jurisdiction with some people, organizations, governments having power over them, being able to pressure them, etc. You always had to think about it, just some of us for some services in some countries more so and earlier.
Luckily on the tech side and organizational side it's not that hard to protect your service from such primitive soft-power censorship attempts. Torrent sites, political websites, vpn, tor, proxy services, porn, darkweb have been doing this for years very successfully. You just need to be careful about jurisdictions you choose for your domains, registrars, hosting providers and you have to separate hosting providers for internet facing servers from the hosting providers for the backend infrastructure, then host internet facing servers in a bunch of different countries with dns failover and some automated setup of new servers to be able to quickly and painlessly switch and try providers. Obviously backend hosting providers shouldn't be able to deduce what you are hosting there at all and it should at least be hard to deduce for frontend ones, have some decoy stuff ready in case they ask, but encrypt everything, encrypt communications with backends, use proxies or even tor if paranoid they can deduce what you are hosting by IPs you are tunneling to, etc. This way you can even keep using AWS for most things without giving AWS power to boot you, just not for internet facing stuff. And once someone boots you from one of your frontend providers - you just switch to a new one in another country.
HN is extremely ignorant on such matters. But the truth is every hosting provider in the world does this in one way or another, as they all belong to some jurisdiction with some people, organizations, governments having power over them, being able to pressure them, etc. You always had to think about it, just some of us for some services in some countries more so and earlier.
Luckily on the tech side and organizational side it's not that hard to protect your service from such primitive soft-power censorship attempts. Torrent sites, political websites, vpn, tor, proxy services, porn, darkweb have been doing this for years very successfully. You just need to be careful about jurisdictions you choose for your domains, registrars, hosting providers and you have to separate hosting providers for internet facing servers from the hosting providers for the backend infrastructure, then host internet facing servers in a bunch of different countries with dns failover and some automated setup of new servers to be able to quickly and painlessly switch and try providers. Obviously backend hosting providers shouldn't be able to deduce what you are hosting there at all and it should at least be hard to deduce for frontend ones, have some decoy stuff ready in case they ask, but encrypt everything, encrypt communications with backends, use proxies or even tor if paranoid they can deduce what you are hosting by IPs you are tunneling to, etc. This way you can even keep using AWS for most things without giving AWS power to boot you, just not for internet facing stuff. And once someone boots you from one of your frontend providers - you just switch to a new one in another country.
> are supposedly harmful to the fabric of democratic society
This is the part that I don't get. Why is this part up for debate? What is the truth? What's the evidence one way or the other?
On one hand, Parler was the platform a bunch of right-wingers and domestic terrorists used to coordinate a half-non-violent half-violent storm on Capitol Hill. Parler didn't moderate that, and therefore they are being shut down by big tech who has deemed they deserve to be censored.
On the other, I'm sure we could find some like... radical Islam groups on Twitter/Facebook, no? Or is that the difference? Twitter + Facebook appropriately censor content and Parler didn't and it's as simple as that?
This is the part that I don't get. Why is this part up for debate? What is the truth? What's the evidence one way or the other?
On one hand, Parler was the platform a bunch of right-wingers and domestic terrorists used to coordinate a half-non-violent half-violent storm on Capitol Hill. Parler didn't moderate that, and therefore they are being shut down by big tech who has deemed they deserve to be censored.
On the other, I'm sure we could find some like... radical Islam groups on Twitter/Facebook, no? Or is that the difference? Twitter + Facebook appropriately censor content and Parler didn't and it's as simple as that?
Yes, it's as simple as that. Organizations that keep criminal activity off of their site don't get hassled by their upstream providers.
You're aware #HangMikePence is trending on Twitter right now unmoderated, right?
This comment is being brigaded so I’m removing it.
Your claims and position on these issues are not universally held. You may very well hold them honestly and sincerely, but they are not incontovertible facts, but rather your assessment of things.
In particular, your beliefs and understandings are not held by some of the people who hold the kind of power being discussed in this comment thread.
In particular, your beliefs and understandings are not held by some of the people who hold the kind of power being discussed in this comment thread.
I guess the current consensus in the US is that it's okay for companies and medias to be arbitrators of what's wrong and what's right. What I don't understand is why companies have double standards. For instances below, a politician, a media anchor, and a random singer. They didn't incite violence?
-- Khamenei wanted to eradicate a people: https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784?l...
-- Chris Cuomo said protests didn't need to be peaceful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezGyemHna_k
-- A rapper sang about how to rob Chinese families because "they don't believe in bank accounts": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFxOsUe0I8o
And what about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRnmnxVtDqg That's okay because the right people claimed that Kavanaugh was a rapist?
-- Khamenei wanted to eradicate a people: https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784?l...
-- Chris Cuomo said protests didn't need to be peaceful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezGyemHna_k
-- A rapper sang about how to rob Chinese families because "they don't believe in bank accounts": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFxOsUe0I8o
And what about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRnmnxVtDqg That's okay because the right people claimed that Kavanaugh was a rapist?
Amazon didn't write this law.
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
That reading of the law is frankly stupid. They are organising a protest and AWS isn't able to take on the responsibility of being the moderation team for an entire internet. And not every nasty comment on the internet represents a threat requiring a police response.
There isn't any rebellion or insurrection going on, these are protests. We all know what a US political protest looks like, we've been watching them for years. There isn't anything especially new here.
There isn't any rebellion or insurrection going on, these are protests. We all know what a US political protest looks like, we've been watching them for years. There isn't anything especially new here.
It's funny when one side does it, it's protesting and when the other does it, it's terrorism. Straight out of 1984
When did BLM try to overthrow the government? When did they try to execute politicians?
None of your examples are existential threats to the fabric of our democracy. Put simply, they don't matter.
I think everyone is missing the context. The technology companies don't care about anything except making sure the new Biden government doesn't regulate them.
Trump was looking into this in his final weeks so they're more than happy to pile on. Now Biden has an opportunity to extend government control into more facets of people's lives and Democrats never waste an opportunity to nudge us towards totalitarianism. The technology companies know this, so they may be making a "See? We're woke too! We agree with you - we banned all the Conservatives just like you would have anyway - no need to regulate" statement. The problem is, it may end up being a Faustian bargain.
Trump was looking into this in his final weeks so they're more than happy to pile on. Now Biden has an opportunity to extend government control into more facets of people's lives and Democrats never waste an opportunity to nudge us towards totalitarianism. The technology companies know this, so they may be making a "See? We're woke too! We agree with you - we banned all the Conservatives just like you would have anyway - no need to regulate" statement. The problem is, it may end up being a Faustian bargain.
is it possible for sitting President to order an executive order to breakup these companies that are openly challenging Trump who still has two more weeks left?
even more worrying is the Cheynne complex where Trump flew to, I have a feeling he is planning something unthinkable.
even more worrying is the Cheynne complex where Trump flew to, I have a feeling he is planning something unthinkable.
No; won't stop him from trying, hasn't stopped him in the past.
> I guess the current consensus in the US is that it's okay for companies and medias to be arbitrators of what's wrong and what's right.
Well, if by “current” you mean “since the adoption of the Bill of Rights”, and if by “companies and medias” you mean “everyone, as to how they will use their own voice and property to promote messages”, yes, to you've correctly understood Constitutional free speech.
Well, if by “current” you mean “since the adoption of the Bill of Rights”, and if by “companies and medias” you mean “everyone, as to how they will use their own voice and property to promote messages”, yes, to you've correctly understood Constitutional free speech.
> A rapper sang about how to rob Chinese families because "they don't believe in bank accounts": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFxOsUe0I8o
Imagine if this was a white or asian person making a rap video about how to not rob blacks because they don't have any money. Twitter and social media would explode with rage.
Can people on HN explain why this double standard exists in America?
It's okay to punch up but not punch down. Doesn't that already say a lot about the racial hierarchy in America? Doesn't this suggest that society considers blacks to be at the bottom of socioeconomic order and need to be "protected" at a politically correct level but refuse to offer the same vigilance when it comes to their economic well being?
Imagine if this was a white or asian person making a rap video about how to not rob blacks because they don't have any money. Twitter and social media would explode with rage.
Can people on HN explain why this double standard exists in America?
It's okay to punch up but not punch down. Doesn't that already say a lot about the racial hierarchy in America? Doesn't this suggest that society considers blacks to be at the bottom of socioeconomic order and need to be "protected" at a politically correct level but refuse to offer the same vigilance when it comes to their economic well being?
> Precautionary principle
5 people are dead from the Parler-coordinated attack on the US Capitol. It's post-cautionary principle now.
5 people are dead from the Parler-coordinated attack on the US Capitol. It's post-cautionary principle now.
Call me cynical, but the short term calculus of the tech companies involved seems pretty clear: after the Democrats have now won the Senate too, they are very quick to block Trump, Parler etc. So they are no better than the Republicans who supported or condoned Trump's antics so far and are only now discovering their conscience when it has become clear that his grip on power is slipping. The proverbial rats getting off the sinking ship...
It’s hard to ban someone with an army and nukes. Judging from what did actually just happen, their employees would be in danger if they’d done it before this. There are people on Parler discussing killing @jack as is.
The (valid) criticism of "Twitter doesn't moderate their platform worth a damn either" runs into the law of scale. Youtube had just as much copyrighted materials as others, they were big enough to deflect calls to remove them. Twitter, same thing.
tengbretson(6)
The root is that online speech is 100% privatized. There is no online post office whose only rules are national law and is completely immune from public backlash against its users. Nobody pickets the US post office when Nazis use it to mail hateful newsletters to each other.
Online providers don't have that immunity. Everything ever said by their users has the potential to severely impact their financial health if the public reaction is significant enough.
Online providers don't have that immunity. Everything ever said by their users has the potential to severely impact their financial health if the public reaction is significant enough.
Is Snap Chat moderated?
How does one decide what is imminent violence?
Who decides it?
Who decides it?
When you demand "trial by combat", and then the angry mob clubs a police officer to death, that's inciting violence.
The platform owner decides, and they come up with a process that is necessarily fuzzy? Our entire system of justice is built on the concept of having to make judgement calls. Moderation is also requires humans to take a look and say, this seems to violate our policies.
Take a look at these: https://mobile.twitter.com/GriffinMalone6/status/13480046828...
Are these threats of imminent violence? I'm confident that a reasonable person would say yes.
Take a look at these: https://mobile.twitter.com/GriffinMalone6/status/13480046828...
Are these threats of imminent violence? I'm confident that a reasonable person would say yes.
Apple is demanding that Parler be held responsible for the content posted by its users OR it will take it off iOS.
So basically Apple is demanding that Parler waive its section 230 protections while lobbying to maintain its own 230 privileges.
https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/13477362322567987...
So basically Apple is demanding that Parler waive its section 230 protections while lobbying to maintain its own 230 privileges.
https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/13477362322567987...
Apple requires moderation tools for public user generated content for all apps. If Parler is refusing to do anything, this falls well within Apple's standard rules.
> “[W]e cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others,”
This seems to be the standard
This seems to be the standard
Question: Would this mean that Signal's backend would be prohibited from running on AWS?
After all, it's almost assuredly the case that at least some Signal users are actively plotting violence. Yet end-to-end encryption by definition makes it impossible for Signal to identify that content.
After all, it's almost assuredly the case that at least some Signal users are actively plotting violence. Yet end-to-end encryption by definition makes it impossible for Signal to identify that content.
"Almost assuredly" is different than "obvious and blatantly and not being moderated". Obviously. You're making the same argument the government has made against encryption. Moderating a private conversation is obviously different than moderating a public one.
But then you have cases where people leak private group chats (either from bad opsec or insider jobs) and people face the ban hammer.
A signal conversation is not a public platform. It's the difference between sending a letter and sending a newsletter.
[deleted]
Signal isn't a social media platform it has no need for moderatation.
Signal will be dead soon enough then too.
I think the difference is signal is private, no? Parler people are just airing racist and threatening shit out in the open. I would personally rather it take place in such private online places instead of in front of everyone.
Rhethoric in Germany is already pointing at various WhatsApp and Telegram groups filled with people discussing unsavory topics. Protocols have been published and the groups are not really that private anymore as soon as you no longer know and trust everyone in them. So as soon as the first Signal groups with Nazi policemen shows up, there will be pressure to somehow get rid of those groups...
So what you're saying is you want to have Nazi policemen? I don't understand what your concern is, because they would probably be incapable of performing their duties fairly
No concern, I just wanted to provide an example for what is currently happening in Whatsapp and Telegram (private groups where illegal content got posted, became known and caused the state to try to get rid of those groups and punish members).
I don't understand why people are resorting to apps like signal for privacy, personally. Edit: as in there are better alternatives
Signal is not built with the explicit purpose of providing cover for to forces that publicly undermine democracy.
Signal allows for the encrypted comms that can potentially permit many heinous crimes, but they do not amplify those messages, and it is obvious that by an large is just a useful medium to communicate as usual for most human beings.
Signal allows for the encrypted comms that can potentially permit many heinous crimes, but they do not amplify those messages, and it is obvious that by an large is just a useful medium to communicate as usual for most human beings.
"No justice no peace"
Violence has no place in any society for any cause. But I think the spirit of BLM slogan is "No justice no peace. We're not going to remain quiet. We're going to cause some trouble. We're going to create some noise." or as John Lewis said "Good trouble". BLM should change it to "Good trouble", it removes any misconceptions.
Signed, Lorenzo Anderson
[deleted]
that's every social media site of non-trivial size. they're opening pandora's box here. does the footage of killings during the Syrian civil war on youtube qualify? shouldn't photos of hanging homosexuals from cranes get you deplatformed? no? why not?
Most of that stuff eventually got taken down from YouTube. Parler isn't even trying.
> that's every social media site of non-trivial size.
Facebook missed the fact their platform was being used to coordinate a genocide in Myanmar.
Facebook missed the fact their platform was being used to coordinate a genocide in Myanmar.
They didn’t miss it, they don’t care. AWS doesn’t care about incitement to violence either, which I have never seen on Parler FWIW despite being a heavy user. It’s political grandstanding, and a lame appeal to their woke engineers to keep the dollars flowing in.
Which basically means that neither Facebook, nor Twitter, could be hosted on AWS.
Amazon, Apple, Google and other companies are free to manage their platform by their own rules, in my opinion. I just want the rules to perfectly clear and enforced fairly. So that when Facebook fails to moderate their platform according to Googles rule, their app is kicked out of the Play store as well.
Amazon, Apple, Google and other companies are free to manage their platform by their own rules, in my opinion. I just want the rules to perfectly clear and enforced fairly. So that when Facebook fails to moderate their platform according to Googles rule, their app is kicked out of the Play store as well.
They probably owe a modifier to violence. I mean, plenty of government agencies involved in national security use AWS.
I'm not particularly fond of this. It's censorship. Parler wasn't doing anything illegal and Amazon had no legal reason to kick them off. I worry for the future. While I don't think the loss of parler is massive this is getting the censorship ball rolling.
Amazon's history of cutting off cloud resources to anyone that the government might frown at goes back almost as far as this history of AWS. For example, way back in 2010, Senator Lieberman had his staff call Bezos and basically say "Hey, you want fat AWS contracts? Cut off Wikileaks." Bezos complied immediately (and later issued a press release that said, effective, "we totally did it because Wikileaks was not complying with our terms of service and it totally wasn't because a Senator called us and told us to."
Parker was being used to promote and organize 2 more riots on the 19th and 20th in the exact same manner it was used to promote and organize the Jan 6 riot that ended in 5 deaths. Also, sedition, what was being planned and organized on parler, is a federal crime, it’s in the criminal code.
Internet was being used to promote and organize 2 more riots on the 19th and 20th in the exact same manner it was used to promote and organize the Jan 6 riot that ended in 5 deaths. Also, sedition, what was being planned and organized on parler, is a federal crime, it’s in the criminal code.
Not saying that Parler shouldn't have been banned, just that this particular argument is weak.
Not saying that Parler shouldn't have been banned, just that this particular argument is weak.
Legal arguments aside.
If you believe strongly that your platform is used to organize something in two weeks that will result in the death of innocent people and you believe strongly that you can just flip a switch to prevent that, would you?
If you believe strongly that your platform is used to organize something in two weeks that will result in the death of innocent people and you believe strongly that you can just flip a switch to prevent that, would you?
In that case I would do a temporary ban for a limited time and not a permanent one.
Irrelevant, "Internet" is not an AWS customer.
I think the interesting test here might be whether a tool like Twitter could still be on AWS during an event like the Arab Spring to coordinate against repressive regimes. Or if those regimes could also claim the same “incites violence” exception and ask AWS to disable the service.
I don't know what makes you think that a) countries don't actively respond to attacks to their own institutions by blocking websites/content/providers or, b) that there's always going to be politics into play.
Social media platforms are not different from traditional news media in that their power to moderate and amplify carry real-world consequences and the value system used to take such choices is bound to the politics of the time. There are truly no neutral choices here.
Social media platforms are not different from traditional news media in that their power to moderate and amplify carry real-world consequences and the value system used to take such choices is bound to the politics of the time. There are truly no neutral choices here.
Yes, you’re very right. This is a censorship in action, due to current politics.
Twitter, Facebook, Big Tech at large, are proud to stand up for free speech against governments abroad (Arab Spring), but here in the US, free speech against government results in deplatforming.
Twitter, Facebook, Big Tech at large, are proud to stand up for free speech against governments abroad (Arab Spring), but here in the US, free speech against government results in deplatforming.
It seems like Parler gives law enforcement an easy way to track these folks and see what they’re planning. Is it really a good idea to send them underground?
I’m also reading a lot about how you can’t incite violence. We should all be able to agree on that. What concerns me is that many used Facebook/Twitter over the summer to plan riots, bombing of federal buildings and even seceding from the USA in Seattle. The problem is not that we shouldn’t take action against this stuff. The problem is that we’re doing it selectively. This is sure to worsen the scenario all around.
I’m also reading a lot about how you can’t incite violence. We should all be able to agree on that. What concerns me is that many used Facebook/Twitter over the summer to plan riots, bombing of federal buildings and even seceding from the USA in Seattle. The problem is not that we shouldn’t take action against this stuff. The problem is that we’re doing it selectively. This is sure to worsen the scenario all around.
Most domestic terrorism leads are surfaced through confidential informants / undercover agents. The number of groups planning / with the capabilities to commit terror are small. The Michigan kidnapping plot was effectively a bunch of guys with almost no skills, they were recruiting an "explosives expert" and it was an easy in for an undercover FBI agent to infiltrate the group.
Beautifully put... would love someone to respond to this in a meaningful way :-) Thanks for asking.
The difference is this event was the heart of the government being attacked by another branch of the government. That crosses a line from though-experiment to existential threat.
Just build your own website bro
Just build your own host bro
Just build your own financial banking system bro
Just build your own water and power infrastructure bro
Just build your own host bro
Just build your own financial banking system bro
Just build your own water and power infrastructure bro
Just don't plan to assassinate a country's legitimately elected representatives bro(?)
There is clearly some collateral damage. Relatively few protesters, versus the millions of people without a free platform to speak on.
Just accept collective punishment bro.
Just build your own country. Oh wait, don't do that!
crypto-anarchy is coming to solve the first 3 for sure. The last one is a little bit more difficult but not impossible.
Where do we draw the line on how we censor the internet? Obviously actual terrorist group sites can and should be taken down, but this feels like it's getting more murky than that.
- Should we be okay with Facebook censoring these groups?
- Should we be okay with Google censoring search results?
- Should we be okay with Apple censoring apps?
- Should we be okay with AWS censoring websites?
- Should we be okay with GoDaddy censoring domains?
- Should we be okay with Verizon censoring internet traffic?
Giant corporations aren’t simply following court orders, they are acting on their own now. This is problematic for a multitude of reasons. The precedent has been established.
*
EDIT: By "actual terrorist groups" I mean those that are classified as such by the US Government (e.g. FBI, CIA, NSA). While I think QAnon and Proud Boys have many of the characteristics of a terrorist group, they are not classified as such (personally I think they should be, but it's the government's job to decide that).
*
- Should we be okay with Facebook censoring these groups?
- Should we be okay with Google censoring search results?
- Should we be okay with Apple censoring apps?
- Should we be okay with AWS censoring websites?
- Should we be okay with GoDaddy censoring domains?
- Should we be okay with Verizon censoring internet traffic?
Giant corporations aren’t simply following court orders, they are acting on their own now. This is problematic for a multitude of reasons. The precedent has been established.
*
EDIT: By "actual terrorist groups" I mean those that are classified as such by the US Government (e.g. FBI, CIA, NSA). While I think QAnon and Proud Boys have many of the characteristics of a terrorist group, they are not classified as such (personally I think they should be, but it's the government's job to decide that).
*
Why does it feel more murky than that? There are actual threats being posted against lawmakers, and then we had a violent storming of the capital by those people, many of them armed, asking where those lawmakers are.
I mean...that image alone. "Violence works. Make them afraid", accompanied with text then saying "How about make them hang?", and showing lawmakers hiding in the Capital.
The fact it's a third party forum that these terrorist threats and planning are taking place doesn't really change the fact it's still facilitating terrorism.
I mean...that image alone. "Violence works. Make them afraid", accompanied with text then saying "How about make them hang?", and showing lawmakers hiding in the Capital.
The fact it's a third party forum that these terrorist threats and planning are taking place doesn't really change the fact it's still facilitating terrorism.
Exactly ,,, you use a platform to call for murdering people in the name of second civil war .. well you get banned. That is the least a civilized society can do.
I really don’t understand this mentality. Why wouldn’t you want this publicly available? You really want domestic terrorists functioning underground? Not only does this prevent people from seeing and judging and debating such an idea, but it also creates a precedent for a stronger surveillance state.
ISIS was famous for radicalizing people around the world thanks to their publicly shared content on the internet. I say we let them fester in the shadows where these awful ideas will have fewer vectors of minds to infect.
In fact, there's some research about this - https://twitter.com/asbruckman/status/1347987974177357833
It was done back in August last year, so not in response to recent events.
The findings were, essentially, it doesn't reduce the individuals toxicity; it does reduce its spread.
It was done back in August last year, so not in response to recent events.
The findings were, essentially, it doesn't reduce the individuals toxicity; it does reduce its spread.
So Amazon, Apple and Google should intentionally keep Parler around as a honeypot to snag right wing terrorists and the rest of society should just pretend we don’t know how they keep getting arrested?
I think Amazon, Apple and Google should rely on the authorities to tell them what can and can’t legally be present on their platform. If something is already clearly illegal, then sure, take action immediately, but there has not been any mention of what Parler is allowing to be illegal. If it’s deemed illegal then I fully support deplatforming.
But, per your original post, wouldn't deplatforming then just be pushing it underground again? While letting it get to the point the ideas can spread and radicalize others?
I think once you’re to the point that something is illegal you’re fringe enough to where the threat is very small. There’s a big difference in the size of groups that say “we should do X” and people actually leaving their houses and “doing X”.
But the people saying "we should do X" help create the ones "doing X". When the crazy action you're contemplating also gets social acceptance and support from a group of like-minded people, all calling for it to be done, it stops seeming so crazy.
There are tweets from 2016 calling for Trump's assassination. When is Apple going to take down the Twitter app?
Here's just a search I did now: https://twitter.com/hashtag/assassinatetrump
Here's just a search I did now: https://twitter.com/hashtag/assassinatetrump
When did Trump encourage murder? This is hyperbole.
[deleted]
Who said anything about Trump? Just so you haven't noticed Trump is not that important anymore.
[deleted]
Who said anything about Trump being important?
Agreed, but like it or not, he is the flagship of this wave of censorship. His ban was the first shot over the bow by the social media giants, if you will.
Lets agree to agree on this.
We're talking about parler getting booted off AWS, what are you talking about?
He tweeted that he wouldn't be at Biden's inauguration, a clear sign that it was okay to attack it. /s
Seriously, that was Twitter's argument for why they banned him...
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
Seriously, that was Twitter's argument for why they banned him...
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
kathy griffen posted a photo of herself with a severed donald trump head. i mean cnn did ask her not to attend a new years Eve party but shouldn't she be deplatformed?
the deplatforming policy is impossible to define and will be enforced arbitrarily. it's going to satisfy no one.
the deplatforming policy is impossible to define and will be enforced arbitrarily. it's going to satisfy no one.
>kathy griffen posted a photo of herself with a severed donald trump head
And she was suspended for that.
And she was suspended for that.
She has reposted since being suspended and apparently it's okay now.
https://mobile.twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1323893513226...
https://mobile.twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1323893513226...
Yep still funny too
I think "accompanied by actual physical acts of violence related to said speech" is a pretty decently high bar, that this incident clears.
Until you have an incident you actually, rather than hypothetically, object to, why do you assume Amazon is going to aggressively deplatform software platforms? They have a pretty clear financial incentive not to.
Until you have an incident you actually, rather than hypothetically, object to, why do you assume Amazon is going to aggressively deplatform software platforms? They have a pretty clear financial incentive not to.
But this isn't the same as ISIS recruiting off of Twitter where the FBI/CIA/NSA monitors that discourse and contacts the respective platforms. This is a company deciding what should and shouldn't be censored.
There's a difference between protected speech and yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater. But with the way things are moving, more and more speech is being classified as "hate speech." The line between offensive speech and violent words is getting more murky. I think there needs to be clear standards and clear enforcement.
There's a difference between protected speech and yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater. But with the way things are moving, more and more speech is being classified as "hate speech." The line between offensive speech and violent words is getting more murky. I think there needs to be clear standards and clear enforcement.
'The line between offensive speech and violent words is getting more murky.'
So do you think Amazon is falling on the wrong side of it here? Because even if it's more murky, if they're waiting until it's -very clearly violent-, egregiously so, with real physical criminal acts occurring because of it, I'm pretty sure no matter how murky the line is, they're well on the side of "violent words", not "offensive speech".
Your concern only applies if they're trying to draw the line in an area that is murky. I'd contend this is not.
So do you think Amazon is falling on the wrong side of it here? Because even if it's more murky, if they're waiting until it's -very clearly violent-, egregiously so, with real physical criminal acts occurring because of it, I'm pretty sure no matter how murky the line is, they're well on the side of "violent words", not "offensive speech".
Your concern only applies if they're trying to draw the line in an area that is murky. I'd contend this is not.
> This is a company deciding what should and shouldn't be censored.
are you saying that platforms cannot choose what to moderate because of a right to free speech? that's nonsense. you want free speech, go outside with a bullhorn, no one will arrest you - that's all that means.
are you saying that platforms cannot choose what to moderate because of a right to free speech? that's nonsense. you want free speech, go outside with a bullhorn, no one will arrest you - that's all that means.
Even if it is okay for Facebook and Twitter to impose strict moderation policies, is it okay for AWS, Verizon, or GoDaddy?
I just think it's a slippery slope, and we desperately need to cement our feet in the ground and draw a line somewhere.
Also, when an overwhelming majority of public discourse takes place online (thanks 2020), the people choosing who does and does not get access to the centralized systems have a CRAZY amount of power. Yelling in a public square isn't how ideas spread anymore.
I just think it's a slippery slope, and we desperately need to cement our feet in the ground and draw a line somewhere.
Also, when an overwhelming majority of public discourse takes place online (thanks 2020), the people choosing who does and does not get access to the centralized systems have a CRAZY amount of power. Yelling in a public square isn't how ideas spread anymore.
Who has lost the ability to speak freely online? The only people who have been banned from speaking are a few high profile people who broke the T&Cs, and were recognized for their toxicity.
This is deplatforming -a platform-, not those people. Every individual on Parler can go create accounts and post on Twitter and Facebook and etc...unless, of course, their toxicity causes them to be banned there.
Nothing legally, or fairly, forces one platform to host another platform.
This is deplatforming -a platform-, not those people. Every individual on Parler can go create accounts and post on Twitter and Facebook and etc...unless, of course, their toxicity causes them to be banned there.
Nothing legally, or fairly, forces one platform to host another platform.
i think it's reasonable that if you are planning violence, you should not be allowed to do it on a public platform, amplified to millions of people. do it in secret, like the good old days!
Is it Ok to force owners of a private company to host content they find objectionable? Gay porn on the Hobby Lobby forums?
AWS is a private business, they don't have to host anything they don't want to. Forcing them to host parler would be an egregious violation of their right to choose who they associate with.
I think a way more interest question is this - what about modern US conservatism makes violence so attractive to it? You cannot have a conservative forum that will not rapidly devolve into violent threats. Even /r/conservative, the more mainstream and mature conservative subreddit is absolutely full of people threatening revolution, backs against the wall, etc.
The reality is that we as a society are getting numb to this and are actually being far too tolerant.
AWS is a private business, they don't have to host anything they don't want to. Forcing them to host parler would be an egregious violation of their right to choose who they associate with.
I think a way more interest question is this - what about modern US conservatism makes violence so attractive to it? You cannot have a conservative forum that will not rapidly devolve into violent threats. Even /r/conservative, the more mainstream and mature conservative subreddit is absolutely full of people threatening revolution, backs against the wall, etc.
The reality is that we as a society are getting numb to this and are actually being far too tolerant.
My problem sometimes with this line of reasoning is that some rights are more important than others, we've already decided that as a fact.
For instance "Forcing them to host parler would be an egregious violation of their right to choose who they associate with." Is true, but we force companies not to discriminate based on Age, Sex, Religion, etc. So your right of who you can associate with isn't iron clad.
We could just as easily add "Freedom of Expression" to the list of things you can not discriminate against, and suddenly the argument holds no water.
I'm not an American, however I sometimes enjoy the irony of America where one side of the political spectrum will be angry that a bakery is forced to bake a cake for a gay couple, but think it's against the customers rights for AWS to not host content they don't agree with.
Whilst the other thinks the baker should be forced to bake a cake against their will, and AWS is free to drop any business they feel like.
For instance "Forcing them to host parler would be an egregious violation of their right to choose who they associate with." Is true, but we force companies not to discriminate based on Age, Sex, Religion, etc. So your right of who you can associate with isn't iron clad.
We could just as easily add "Freedom of Expression" to the list of things you can not discriminate against, and suddenly the argument holds no water.
I'm not an American, however I sometimes enjoy the irony of America where one side of the political spectrum will be angry that a bakery is forced to bake a cake for a gay couple, but think it's against the customers rights for AWS to not host content they don't agree with.
Whilst the other thinks the baker should be forced to bake a cake against their will, and AWS is free to drop any business they feel like.
> we force companies not to discriminate based on Age, Sex, Religion, etc.
none of these qualities pose a threat to others in our civilized society. however, spoken words have a direct influence on anyone who hears them. so there is in fact a difference which is not simply arbitrary.
none of these qualities pose a threat to others in our civilized society. however, spoken words have a direct influence on anyone who hears them. so there is in fact a difference which is not simply arbitrary.
So you're saying censorship has no threat to civilized society?
>“Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates,” Benjamin Franklin declared. By sharing knowledge and sparking debate, a free press invigorates and educates the nation’s citizens. Freedom will be “a short-lived possession” unless the people are informed, Thomas Jefferson once said. To quote John Adams: “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of the state.”
However you want to define these apps, they're basically falling under the first Amendment. Obviously there are limits which are carved out in law. However how would you feel if newspaper printers elected to no longer print specific news papers backing one candidate or another?
In an ideal world, the market would separate the wheat from the chaff, and these platforms would dry up and die on their own.
>“Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates,” Benjamin Franklin declared. By sharing knowledge and sparking debate, a free press invigorates and educates the nation’s citizens. Freedom will be “a short-lived possession” unless the people are informed, Thomas Jefferson once said. To quote John Adams: “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of the state.”
However you want to define these apps, they're basically falling under the first Amendment. Obviously there are limits which are carved out in law. However how would you feel if newspaper printers elected to no longer print specific news papers backing one candidate or another?
In an ideal world, the market would separate the wheat from the chaff, and these platforms would dry up and die on their own.
most things you quote do not apply to a society where you can reach 70 million people, effortlessly and immediately with 0 cost. 200 years ago there was no way to easily impersonate via a fake video, photo, or recording. wax seals were used to prove authenticity of official mail.
> However how would you feel if newspaper printers elected to no longer print specific news papers backing one candidate or another?
like they have been doing since they have existed?
i assume you mean if all newspapers decided to stop printing the same side of the story. if that side of the story was suggesting the vice president needs to be assasinated, then i think that's an okay viewpoint to marginalize before it reaches the entire country.
> However how would you feel if newspaper printers elected to no longer print specific news papers backing one candidate or another?
like they have been doing since they have existed?
i assume you mean if all newspapers decided to stop printing the same side of the story. if that side of the story was suggesting the vice president needs to be assasinated, then i think that's an okay viewpoint to marginalize before it reaches the entire country.
>like they have been doing since they have existed?
>i assume you mean if all newspapers decided to stop printing the same side of the story. if that side of the story was suggesting the vice president needs to be assasinated, then i think that's an okay viewpoint to marginalize before it reaches the entire country.
No I was saying if the provider of printing to say your local news paper was friends with the Mayor and there was a corruption story, and they opted to decline the business of the local newspaper and refuse to print it.
Not every newspaper owns their own printing.
I hear what you're saying, I'm just saying the laws need to catch up, we can't depend on each company being socially pressured to do this or that. If we regulate the internet like a utility then we need to move to that world.
>i assume you mean if all newspapers decided to stop printing the same side of the story. if that side of the story was suggesting the vice president needs to be assasinated, then i think that's an okay viewpoint to marginalize before it reaches the entire country.
No I was saying if the provider of printing to say your local news paper was friends with the Mayor and there was a corruption story, and they opted to decline the business of the local newspaper and refuse to print it.
Not every newspaper owns their own printing.
I hear what you're saying, I'm just saying the laws need to catch up, we can't depend on each company being socially pressured to do this or that. If we regulate the internet like a utility then we need to move to that world.
You see the same unhinged types on left leaning platforms. Online forums attract the fringe loudmouths. Parler is not representative of modern US conservatism. I call myself conservative and I've never in my life visited the site.
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most...
Edit: to be clear, in context, I am saying that these nutjob posters on Parler are not representative. I understand that mainstream conservatives may also have a presence there.
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most...
Edit: to be clear, in context, I am saying that these nutjob posters on Parler are not representative. I understand that mainstream conservatives may also have a presence there.
"If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech."
-Noam Chomsky
-Noam Chomsky
i wonder if his views would be the same if tens of thousands of people were chanting "hang chomsky" because they were convinced by "free speech" that he was a pedophile, through cheap and easy dissemination of photoshopped images and ai-generated voice "recordings".
it's difficult to map pre-internet ideals to 2021.
it's difficult to map pre-internet ideals to 2021.
Also, pre-deepfake ideals.
Regarding the "FIRE!" analogy - there are journalists such as Glenn Greenwald arguing that media and politicians fearmongering the specter of right wing terrorism are the becoming the ones yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater, and the mass deplatforming of regular conservative groups and proposed Patriot Act 2.0 measures that will ensue is the movie theater suffering disproportionate and unnecessary harm as a result.
Is there actually mass deplatforming of regular conservative groups? Where is this happening?
On Facebook, “WalkAway” a community that was devoted to compiling hundreds of thousands of ex-Democrat video and text testimonials was banned. It was not about Q and didn’t advocate breaking into government buildings.
It was the most wholesome right wing space I’ve ever seen on the internet. People sharing their experiences being alienated by either how they saw media manipulate a story they knew about or by how divisive partisanship and cancel culture personally affected them. Welcoming each other in the comments regardless of their sexual orientation or race. It would have been a useful place to learn from but now it’s gone.
It was the most wholesome right wing space I’ve ever seen on the internet. People sharing their experiences being alienated by either how they saw media manipulate a story they knew about or by how divisive partisanship and cancel culture personally affected them. Welcoming each other in the comments regardless of their sexual orientation or race. It would have been a useful place to learn from but now it’s gone.
> many of them armed
I haven't heard of more than 5 firearms. No mention of where those were. Videos I have seen just show flags, signs, cameras, and mobile phones. What were these "many" armed with?
I haven't heard of more than 5 firearms. No mention of where those were. Videos I have seen just show flags, signs, cameras, and mobile phones. What were these "many" armed with?
Pipe bombs, molotov cocktails, mace, plenty of arms other than firearms. This article has some links to more info: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/one-of-the-trump-sup...
It'll be simplest to watch the AG charge people, since they only file those charges if they're confident in a successful prosecution. Charges will probably be trickling in for months as they identify the insurrectionists.
It'll be simplest to watch the AG charge people, since they only file those charges if they're confident in a successful prosecution. Charges will probably be trickling in for months as they identify the insurrectionists.
One guy rolled up with a truck off molotov cocktails and firearms. Several IEDs were discovered and detonated by bomb squads.
So one guy is now many?
Nine firearms plus one long gun, one container of molotovs, several pipe bombs, and two IEDs were seized by police. Additionally several released chemical agents at police. One beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. One was photographed with a set of zip tie restraints.
And that's just what was captured obviously. Presumably for everything found there were several more things concealed.
And that's just what was captured obviously. Presumably for everything found there were several more things concealed.
Is the guy in custody? Who is he? What's his background?
[deleted]
The parent comment was not asking where to draw the line on _what_ to censor. The question was "where do we draw the line on _how_ we censor the internet?"
E.g. If your ISP decides that something you posted on Twitter violates some standard of their own devise, should they be allowed to disconnect you?
E.g. If your ISP decides that something you posted on Twitter violates some standard of their own devise, should they be allowed to disconnect you?
According to the GOP, yes. -I- personally support net neutrality however. As well as the net being a need to operate in society.
But the ability to run a workload on AWS? They're a business. I'm totally okay with them deciding to stop doing business with me. That also has a GOP precedent, what with that whole "You don't have to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple" thing.
But the ability to run a workload on AWS? They're a business. I'm totally okay with them deciding to stop doing business with me. That also has a GOP precedent, what with that whole "You don't have to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple" thing.
ISPs are businesses too, so that's not really the relevant distinction here. Why would you be okay with AWS deciding not to do business with you based on something you said, but not your ISP? Seems rather arbitrary to me.
"(I support...) As well as the net being a need to operate in society."
That's why. Access to a company's compute resources is not a need. Further, there are options, many different cloud vendors with different T&Cs, different allowed things, different jurisdictions, cultural expectations, etc. If I manage to break the T&Cs to all of them, that's kind of on me, and doesn't preclude me from having access to compute resources (I just have to buy them).
The internet? I've got one ISP option. And without it, I'm cut off from a large part of what it means to function in this day and age.
That's why. Access to a company's compute resources is not a need. Further, there are options, many different cloud vendors with different T&Cs, different allowed things, different jurisdictions, cultural expectations, etc. If I manage to break the T&Cs to all of them, that's kind of on me, and doesn't preclude me from having access to compute resources (I just have to buy them).
The internet? I've got one ISP option. And without it, I'm cut off from a large part of what it means to function in this day and age.
ISPs should be common carriers. Unfortunately the current administration disagrees.
At what point should something like AWS be a "common carrier" though?
When it's transporting goods (data) to the general public without discrimination, for the public good and necessity. Since that's the definition of a common carrier.
AWS isn't fundamentally transporting goods but providing a service (the transmission of data happens via a common carrier between you and it). It's not clear that AWS access is a public necessity. And it's never attempted to claim it does so without discrimination.
AWS isn't fundamentally transporting goods but providing a service (the transmission of data happens via a common carrier between you and it). It's not clear that AWS access is a public necessity. And it's never attempted to claim it does so without discrimination.
If real threats are being posted against lawmakers, there should be a legal process to resolve the situation.
Right, and BLM chanting kill the police, that should be encouraged by twitter and facebook????
Your logic defies me.
Keep on voting for pelosi so she could continue becoming rich off the backs of hardworking americans and eating 10k dollar ice cream
Your logic defies me.
Keep on voting for pelosi so she could continue becoming rich off the backs of hardworking americans and eating 10k dollar ice cream
Creating accounts to break HN's guidelines like this will get your main account banned as well, so please don't do that.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's a good question, but for the record, I'm fine with the line being somewhere before Parler, which is full of people plotting political assassinations.
This happened to Gab.ai, too, but it happened after one of those plotters committed a mass murder, one he advertised on Gab, at the Tree of Life synagogue.
This happened to Gab.ai, too, but it happened after one of those plotters committed a mass murder, one he advertised on Gab, at the Tree of Life synagogue.
I fully agree but it's getting increasingly hard to make this argument with a straight face given that the tech companies in question still host numerous other hate groups. Twitter still allows the leaders of the Taliban and the Nation of Islam to post.
It's clear that the "line" we're talking about is arbitrarily set for different groups based on some unknown criteria, and that IMO is part of the problem.
It's clear that the "line" we're talking about is arbitrarily set for different groups based on some unknown criteria, and that IMO is part of the problem.
I think the criterion is pretty clear: this stopped being a matter of speech or rhetoric, and started being a matter of real-world violence and unrest.
For the record, I think all extremists should be banned, including the Taliban and Iran.
For the record, I think all extremists should be banned, including the Taliban and Iran.
Because the Taliban doesn't commit acts of real-world violence and unrest...?
I'm guessing it's because they don't advertise^ plans for violence in public... or on Twitter.
Edit: ^specific plans
Edit: ^specific plans
https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1346373559812300800
This is the official spokesman of the Taliban posting a propaganda video of a militant bragging about waging jihad.
https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1343458261459218432
This is another video (and also see part2 of the tweet, which is posted as a reply to this one) where militants holding guns talk about their plan to kill the government leaders of Afghanistan.
This is the official spokesman of the Taliban posting a propaganda video of a militant bragging about waging jihad.
https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1343458261459218432
This is another video (and also see part2 of the tweet, which is posted as a reply to this one) where militants holding guns talk about their plan to kill the government leaders of Afghanistan.
These Silicon Valley-based corporations are no doubt highly ineffective at moderating content outside of a specific American, Anglophone context. Certainly the Rohingya know the fruits of their failure:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16574370
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15296442
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16574370
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15296442
Hmm, that sounds a whole lot like the basis for banings of Parler. Inability/unwillingness to moderate such things effectively.
In the end this is all about some virtue signaling towards their own employees (so that they don't start quitting and are not unhappy) and about money.
In the end this is all about some virtue signaling towards their own employees (so that they don't start quitting and are not unhappy) and about money.
[deleted]
Also, I don’t think it’s unreasonable—or even controversial—that we would hold the _president of the United States_ to a higher standard of conduct than the taliban. Especially with respect to the impact he has on the day to day operations of the US and the actions of tens of millions of Americans...
In the current context, we aren't talking about the president of the united states, we're talking about a bunch of random people on Parler.
But if your point is that government officials should be held to a higher standard than random, non-official peoples, I agree... which is why it seems like an arbitrary wrong to me that the official leaders of the Taliban are still able to post videos calling for the death of nonbelievers.
If, rather, your point is that we don't care about the Taliban because the ongoing deaths of thousands of people in Afghanistan is something that our society cares less about than the death of a handful of Americans... well, I suppose you're right, but I'm not sure how I feel about agreeing with that.
But if your point is that government officials should be held to a higher standard than random, non-official peoples, I agree... which is why it seems like an arbitrary wrong to me that the official leaders of the Taliban are still able to post videos calling for the death of nonbelievers.
If, rather, your point is that we don't care about the Taliban because the ongoing deaths of thousands of people in Afghanistan is something that our society cares less about than the death of a handful of Americans... well, I suppose you're right, but I'm not sure how I feel about agreeing with that.
You’re very right on two points^:
1. I’m getting mixed up vis a vis Parler vs Trump vs Twitter vs AWS vs the rest...and you’re right that it _is_ wrong for Twitter to give the Taliban a platform to spew vile shit. That said, I think the conduct of American officials is of much greater proximate concern than the Taliban off in Afghanistan...
2. ...but that doesn’t excuse senseless deaths of foreign people. It’s not surprising that Twitter aws et al are more responsive to active threats to American lives than Afghani lives, though it is disappointing—if it’s the case. But I’m not under the impression the Taliban is actively and publicly and widespreadly planning murder and riots on Twitter.
^at least these two, I’m not passing judgement on others.
1. I’m getting mixed up vis a vis Parler vs Trump vs Twitter vs AWS vs the rest...and you’re right that it _is_ wrong for Twitter to give the Taliban a platform to spew vile shit. That said, I think the conduct of American officials is of much greater proximate concern than the Taliban off in Afghanistan...
2. ...but that doesn’t excuse senseless deaths of foreign people. It’s not surprising that Twitter aws et al are more responsive to active threats to American lives than Afghani lives, though it is disappointing—if it’s the case. But I’m not under the impression the Taliban is actively and publicly and widespreadly planning murder and riots on Twitter.
^at least these two, I’m not passing judgement on others.
My apologies, I edited my comment but you responded before my update...
That said, a big difference is that the taliban are not actively inciting Americans to storm the capitol en masse.*
And there’s not much domestic debate that they’re a problem. My belief is Twitter was pushed to this extent by the fact that it’s the president of the US, an inherently credible figure with huge sway among American citizens.
*edit to add: by ‘actively’ I mean ‘successfully, across thousands of Americans.’ They both incite violence in the US, but so far only Trump et al have accomplished a riot in DC that killed police...
That said, a big difference is that the taliban are not actively inciting Americans to storm the capitol en masse.*
And there’s not much domestic debate that they’re a problem. My belief is Twitter was pushed to this extent by the fact that it’s the president of the US, an inherently credible figure with huge sway among American citizens.
*edit to add: by ‘actively’ I mean ‘successfully, across thousands of Americans.’ They both incite violence in the US, but so far only Trump et al have accomplished a riot in DC that killed police...
[deleted]
you may think they should but they haven't. if there's not a huge wave of bans of the next few weeks then the hypocrisy will be impossible to ignore.
[deleted]
The criteria seem pretty clear. The reputational (and other) risks to their business passed a certain, admittedly ill-defined, threshold. If enough of the "right" people raise a public stink about other individuals or groups, those will get dropped too.
The line is very clear. We are not those people and we hold ourselves to a higher bar than them. We don't want to descend to their level. Hate for them shouldn't turn us into them.
I'm not sure who "we" is referring to, but if you're referring to America, the Nation of Islam is an American political/religious group based in Chicago that routinely calls for the death of Jewish people (they also advocate for the death of Asians, teach that all white people are satanic, and are anti-vaxxers). "We" already have descended to their level, and yet Twitter allows them to remain.
Not "we" as in "all of us". Lets keep the psychos out.
Yep I think its fine that parler is getting booted based on the content that is getting posted. Lets not pretend that all these companies are trying to squash people of a certain political group, they are simply banning users posting borderline illegal and violent content. You can quite easily use mainstream social media as long as you aren't posting about how someone should be beheaded.
> You can quite easily use mainstream social media as long as you aren't posting about how someone should be beheaded.
https://thehill.com/sites/default/files/blogs/kathygriffintw...
https://thehill.com/sites/default/files/blogs/kathygriffintw...
Literally no person in the entire world believed this was an appeal for people to behead Donald Trump.
You’re a lot smarter than this, so my reaction to this is wondering why you would say this.
Say more? I'm being sincere.
There is absolutely no way you can be certain of the beliefs of the whole world in response to something. It’s hard enough to even feel confident you truly know the beliefs of a single person.
That alone is true, but this imagery itself is so grotesque that we ought to assume it led to a change in the degree of motive to cause harm. If you don’t believe me, consider a thought exercise where the identity of the person involved is exchanged with someone who did end up assassinated this way. Would it be reasonable to conclude this influenced it?
That alone is true, but this imagery itself is so grotesque that we ought to assume it led to a change in the degree of motive to cause harm. If you don’t believe me, consider a thought exercise where the identity of the person involved is exchanged with someone who did end up assassinated this way. Would it be reasonable to conclude this influenced it?
That doesn't seem at all plausible to me. Further, I don't think you can point to lots of serious "behead Trump" chatter in the opposition; conversely, I can easily point you to "hang Pence from the tree outside the Capitol" postings that were not kidding.
Anyways, we probably understand each other at this point and don't need to belabor this, even if we don't agree with each other.
Anyways, we probably understand each other at this point and don't need to belabor this, even if we don't agree with each other.
I'm only responding to your point, I wasn't making any comparisons. Perhaps if taken literally what you said may be correct - the problem with this kind of imagery is not its advocacy of a specific technique, but allowing people to more clearly imagine it and normalizing it in their minds.
In any case, I stand by my claim that to say you can know the full effect on all minds of a certain image is a poor argument to make, since it's literally impossible to know. I hope you'll at least recognize that kind of claim is worth avoiding, if for no other reason that it inadvertently undermines any other point you are trying to make.
In any case, I stand by my claim that to say you can know the full effect on all minds of a certain image is a poor argument to make, since it's literally impossible to know. I hope you'll at least recognize that kind of claim is worth avoiding, if for no other reason that it inadvertently undermines any other point you are trying to make.
Here is a previous case of someone who took action that on the face of it was only egged on in hyperbolic political talk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_sh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_sh...
Can you cite a source on the connection between Kathy Griffin and the guy who shot Scalise?
As far as I know there isn't any documented. However your claim is "Literally no person in the entire world believed this was an appeal for people to behead Donald Trump." I think you are overstating the wide range of interpretations humans often have.
Like many assassins, the person who fired on a congressional sports practice did appear to be motivated by political animus that on the face of it would not include shooting up the players on a ball field. But that is what the person did. This is similar to the attempted assassination of the Arizona congressperson in response to the Alaskan politician's crosshair advertisements.
As a reasonable person it is difficult to understand that folks might not share your views because as a reasonable person one's views seem logical and well grounded. That is totally understandable.
Like many assassins, the person who fired on a congressional sports practice did appear to be motivated by political animus that on the face of it would not include shooting up the players on a ball field. But that is what the person did. This is similar to the attempted assassination of the Arizona congressperson in response to the Alaskan politician's crosshair advertisements.
As a reasonable person it is difficult to understand that folks might not share your views because as a reasonable person one's views seem logical and well grounded. That is totally understandable.
[deleted]
>You can quite easily use mainstream social media as long as you aren't posting about how someone should be beheaded.
Is that so? Curious, because I was seeing a lot of guillotine memes from leftists last month.
Is that so? Curious, because I was seeing a lot of guillotine memes from leftists last month.
When the leftists guillotine someone, this will become a more persuasive argument.
Dispite my disagreeing with you and feeling pretty shafted by the removal of Parler, don't take it personally - you're an open source contributer who has earned my respect.
Isn't the whole point of this "deplatforming" to stop incitement?
Yes, after concrete evidence that the incitement is sincere, or being materially interpreted as sincere.
(For the record: I think the guillotine imagery is as offensive as the Pinochet helicopter stuff, which is to say, extraordinarily offensive, and I think less of anyone who uses it. That's easy for me to say though, because I'm also not a leftist.).
(For the record: I think the guillotine imagery is as offensive as the Pinochet helicopter stuff, which is to say, extraordinarily offensive, and I think less of anyone who uses it. That's easy for me to say though, because I'm also not a leftist.).
Did they name people, places, or times? A key factor in free speech legal cases is how credibly threatening something is — someone telling a friend “I’m going to strangle you!” after they get rickrolled is clearly not but someone saying “On <date>, we’re going to <place> to kill <politician>” is enough that the Secret Service might want to talk with you.
Another factor is the climate: nobody is using guillotines anywhere now but mass shootings are sadly common.
Another factor is the climate: nobody is using guillotines anywhere now but mass shootings are sadly common.
I agree that Parler should be shut down, but going forward I think we need to rely on court systems with due process (or some new alternative system that specifically addresses digital censorship). I’m afraid of this becoming the norm.
Public discourse increasingly relies on these corporate platforms. I don’t think everyone quite understands the implications of normalizing this behavior, and to me that’s frightening.
Public discourse increasingly relies on these corporate platforms. I don’t think everyone quite understands the implications of normalizing this behavior, and to me that’s frightening.
To be clear, it isn't being shut down. A private company has chosen not to host it on its servers. They can invest in servers and host it themselves, if they so choose.
It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction to make.
It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction to make.
Sure that's possible, but what if their domain registrar disables their domain name? What if Verizon limits web traffic to and from the website? The idea that that could happen used to be far fetched, but now I wouldn't be surprised.
Then perhaps letting people plot insurrection and violence against politicians and pretending you can’t moderate them isn’t a working business model.
[deleted]
AI moderation bots, here we come. And people complain about ContentID on Youtube...
Domain registars seems a bit more of a sticky wicket. That is quite a bit more complex than simply hosting your own website, and I have no way around it and I'm unsure as to what the solution should be, TBH. I'd say it should be under governmental control, but they move at a snail's pace and I doubt they could handle the volume.
As for monitoring and throttling personal web traffic from our homes, that's long been an issue which is already an issue and not just with Verizon. EFF has brought suit in the courts, but to no avail, as of yet. So as for being far fetched, not only is it not, it's happening now. Comcast regularly throttles traffic to gaming sites/services during peak television hours. What's the difference?
As for monitoring and throttling personal web traffic from our homes, that's long been an issue which is already an issue and not just with Verizon. EFF has brought suit in the courts, but to no avail, as of yet. So as for being far fetched, not only is it not, it's happening now. Comcast regularly throttles traffic to gaming sites/services during peak television hours. What's the difference?
Then they can find a registrar who wants their business.
where does it end though? do the critics then attack any org that colocates their servers, anyone that provides peering?
i find it quite shocking how quickly this is all coming, over a drummed up hysteria.
i find it quite shocking how quickly this is all coming, over a drummed up hysteria.
Five people are dead and the heart of our democracy was invaded by a violent mob. There are no hysterics here.
Heart of democracy or historic conference center with attached offices?
If democracy does not beat in hearts of all and instead resides in an old building far away then truely its count of future days is not high.
If democracy does not beat in hearts of all and instead resides in an old building far away then truely its count of future days is not high.
Hilarious how historic government symbols and tradition are suddenly cool again, after a summer of statues, monuments, and buildings being vandalized and toppled.
All the people who died chose to be there. It's not like bystanders died. They knew the risks going in. Plus, one died of stroke and another of a heart attack. Blaming those deaths on Parler is a little hysterical.
just keep pushing people into corners, surely that will help to calm things down.
Well, personally, I'll never do business with AWS again, and I'll advocate against using them every place I work from now on (I already argue against using proprietary AWS services in order to keep things portable). Does that matter much to them? No, but I can only control what I do.
For the record: I don't know if "shut down" is the optimal outcome. Credible moderation --- "no appeals to violence" --- would take it from dangerous to mere odiousness. But I don't know that anyone has a right to demand any private business host odious content, either.
But it's Parler's problem that they've hit this point with so little time to build credible moderation, not anybody else's. Me sowing, me reaping, &c &c.
But it's Parler's problem that they've hit this point with so little time to build credible moderation, not anybody else's. Me sowing, me reaping, &c &c.
The fundamental question is not whether the line should be drawn before or after parler, but who should draw the line, who should decide what kind of websites are allowed to exist. We don't allow electricity providers to decide what kind of businesses are allowed to exist, similarly we should not allow hosting providers to decide what kind of websites are allowed to exist.
Then Twitter should be banned too because it's full of calls for political assassinations: https://twitter.com/hashtag/assassinatetrump
So Signal and Telegram should be banned as well from all IaaS, app stores etc. as well since Islamic terrorists have been shown to use them?
Parler is also full of people who aren’t plotting assassinations. And there are plenty of terrorists on Twitter too, but nobody wants to talk about that.
[deleted]
There's state sanctioned violence & there's uncontrolled violence. Authorities don't like competition, especially when they are on the take.
> Where do we draw the line on how we censor the internet? Obviously actual terrorist group sites can and should be taken down, but this feels more murky than that.
No, it doesnt. Actual terrorist group sites should be banned and kicked of whatever platforms they're operating on. No one, or no company, should be required to provide service to them.
I really struggle to see the issue here. If you allow calls for elected officials, or anyone, to be publically murdered, then it's free game for companys to refuse your service. It's pretty fucking simple imho.
No, it doesnt. Actual terrorist group sites should be banned and kicked of whatever platforms they're operating on. No one, or no company, should be required to provide service to them.
I really struggle to see the issue here. If you allow calls for elected officials, or anyone, to be publically murdered, then it's free game for companys to refuse your service. It's pretty fucking simple imho.
mynameishere(2)
"Obviously actual terrorist group sites can and should be taken down, but this feels more murky than that."
§ 2384. According to the statutory definition of sedition, it is a crime for two or more people within the jurisdiction of the United States: ... To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States; or.
Terrorists.
§ 2384. According to the statutory definition of sedition, it is a crime for two or more people within the jurisdiction of the United States: ... To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States; or.
Terrorists.
Okay, but the problem is that we aren't using the same systems that would be used to take down an ISIS website. Instead we are becoming increasingly reliant on corporate leaders defining where the line is drawn. There is no due process or appeals system; they are the prosecutor and the judge.
I think it's fair to say that Facebook/Twitter/AWS/whatever has been more lenient in favor of these "Capitol people" and Trump than ISIS.
Do you think Twitter would deliberate days/months/years to ban an ISIS account?
Do you think Twitter would deliberate days/months/years to ban an ISIS account?
By that standard a civil rights era sit in or march was sedition. That doesn’t seem just, but I guess there is much more work to do.
Which was indeed said by opponents of civil rights at the time. And people were arrested on that basis:
> December 13th 1954: White civil rights activist Carl Braden was convicted of sedition in Louisville, Kentucky on this day. His crime? He and his wife Anne purchased a home in an all-white neighborhood and then almost immediately sold it to an African-American.
http://todayinclh.com/?event=civil-rights-activist-carl-brad...
> December 13th 1954: White civil rights activist Carl Braden was convicted of sedition in Louisville, Kentucky on this day. His crime? He and his wife Anne purchased a home in an all-white neighborhood and then almost immediately sold it to an African-American.
http://todayinclh.com/?event=civil-rights-activist-carl-brad...
Its fascinating how the civil rights movement changed the enforcement of sedition law but did not lead to the repeal.
Those things are for judges to decide, not an Internet mob (or militant employees of Big Tech).
It's not ok to create HN accounts for political battle. It's not what this site is for, and doing it will eventually get your main account banned as well. Please don't.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Actually businesses should and must decide these things for themselves. A lot of stores now enforce rules for customers to wear masks, without any legal mandate or ruling by courts that masks are mandatory. It's good business, because your other customers won't want to shop at your store if they don't feel safe in a pandemic.
Likewise, tech companies have the right to decide what is good business for themselves. Hosting a platform where insurrection and violence is being organized, will turn off your other customers and your employees.
Are we saying no to free markets and private enterprise getting to choose good business decisions for themselves now?
Likewise, tech companies have the right to decide what is good business for themselves. Hosting a platform where insurrection and violence is being organized, will turn off your other customers and your employees.
Are we saying no to free markets and private enterprise getting to choose good business decisions for themselves now?
So to be clear, you want to force a private company to do business with someone? How is this any different from a store having a “no shirt, no shoes, no service” sign?
> Where do we draw the line on how we censor the internet?
Is this censorship? Looks to like someone saying they don’t want to host someone else’s crap.
It would be a form of censorship if private companies were forced to host content they didn’t want to host.
> Giant corporations aren’t simply following court orders, they are acting on their own now. This is problematic for a multitude of reasons. The precedent has been established.
I think this is a completely different problem that stems from anti-competitive behaviour. If we’re unhappy with a few large companies acting as extra-judicial gatekeepers, then we should break them up and increase competition and diversity in the market.
If they hold a natural monopoly, then we should make them utilities, and make it explicitly clear that government is controlling their behaviour, and concepts like the 1st amendment should apply to them.
What we shouldn’t do is try to fix this problem by having governments force private companies to host certain content. For the same reason we don’t want governments forcing private individuals to express certain speech.
Is this censorship? Looks to like someone saying they don’t want to host someone else’s crap.
It would be a form of censorship if private companies were forced to host content they didn’t want to host.
> Giant corporations aren’t simply following court orders, they are acting on their own now. This is problematic for a multitude of reasons. The precedent has been established.
I think this is a completely different problem that stems from anti-competitive behaviour. If we’re unhappy with a few large companies acting as extra-judicial gatekeepers, then we should break them up and increase competition and diversity in the market.
If they hold a natural monopoly, then we should make them utilities, and make it explicitly clear that government is controlling their behaviour, and concepts like the 1st amendment should apply to them.
What we shouldn’t do is try to fix this problem by having governments force private companies to host certain content. For the same reason we don’t want governments forcing private individuals to express certain speech.
Aren't all these things already regularly done in response to copyright violations, spam, child porn, etc? Seems like the precedent was set long ago.
> Obviously actual terrorist group sites can and should be taken down, but this feels more murky than that.
Considering the perpetrators of Wednesday's attack had guns and bombs[1] and declared their intent to kill US political leaders... what exactly distinguishes them from "actual terrorist groups"?
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/us-capitol-riots-arr...
> Obviously actual terrorist group sites can and should be taken down, but this feels more murky than that.
Considering the perpetrators of Wednesday's attack had guns and bombs[1] and declared their intent to kill US political leaders... what exactly distinguishes them from "actual terrorist groups"?
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/us-capitol-riots-arr...
The article says somebody parked 2 blocks away and left bombs and guns in their truck. Doesn’t that make you think the perps did not have guns and bombs while they were perpetrating?
Just because he was arrested before he could use any of those items doesn't change the fact that violence was intended. Pipe bombs were also planted at the RNC and DNC headquarters.
How do you classify an “actual terrorist grouping site” versus a “collection of fringe political ideological groups who happens to have a lot of content which looks suspiciously like the same content you’d find on actual terrorist groups’ sites” without using a broad brush?
If you can’t tell the difference, does it matter?
To me, no.
My question was to the author of the commentary I was replying...though, since I posted they’ve gone back and appended a note to their comment providing their definition.
My question was to the author of the commentary I was replying...though, since I posted they’ve gone back and appended a note to their comment providing their definition.
It's called The Benghazi Line: if they've collectively caused more deaths (5) than occurred during the Benghazi Incident (4), then they're a legit threat requiring action to disrupt and deplatform.
With less snark: it's not about how much organization they demonstrate, it's a judgement call about the likelihood of tangible damage and destruction occurring. Yes, it's an imprecise standard. That's the reality in which we live and operate.
With less snark: it's not about how much organization they demonstrate, it's a judgement call about the likelihood of tangible damage and destruction occurring. Yes, it's an imprecise standard. That's the reality in which we live and operate.
Private companies are free to ‘censor’ what they believe is either bad for business or exposes them to liability. Maybe the free market has decided extremism is bad for business.
The problem with the whole "free market" argument is that these companies don't abide by the same forces as traditional companies. If all my friends are on Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat, then I am forced to use those. Social media companies have quasi-monopolies and using alternatives is both difficult and impractical. Perhaps more decentralized communication networks will come about, but the government might use situations like this to shut them down or limit the legality of their use (as people cheer it on).
Convince your friends to change platform. If they won't, and it is such a foundational issue to you then perhaps you should either not worry about your social interactions being censored or find different friends. If my friends frequent a bowling alley I find questionable am I "forced" to partake because that is where my friends frequent? Your argument carries little weight to coerce such lax regulation.
Tangentially, not terminating business with Parler could be construed as not operating in their shareholders best interest, a breach of their fiduciary duty, as it could potentially harm future business opportunities if they become associated with the platform. In this case AWS is not a utility that holds a monopoly on some resource. There is market competition, and hosting your own service is an option. If a telcom prevented the latter I'd agree with your argument, as there aren't necessarily alternate options. Even then the law outlines a framework where some content is illegal that any lawyer working for the firm could green flag for client/contract termination.
Tangentially, not terminating business with Parler could be construed as not operating in their shareholders best interest, a breach of their fiduciary duty, as it could potentially harm future business opportunities if they become associated with the platform. In this case AWS is not a utility that holds a monopoly on some resource. There is market competition, and hosting your own service is an option. If a telcom prevented the latter I'd agree with your argument, as there aren't necessarily alternate options. Even then the law outlines a framework where some content is illegal that any lawyer working for the firm could green flag for client/contract termination.
Big businesses will always have massive influence. Walmart refuses to stock AO rated computer games and NC17 movies. Advertisers don't want their ads running next to pornography. Corporate America supports gay rights (less some holdouts like Exxon). Some medium size cities in America only have have one newspaper left.
I'm not concerned about social media network effects. MySpace and AOL used to be dominant services.
I'm not concerned about social media network effects. MySpace and AOL used to be dominant services.
Social media companies have quasi-monopolies and using alternatives is both difficult and impractical.
So did the press, and yet they were expressly granted this freedom. Buying a printing press and starting your own paper wasn't easy either, but the 1st amendment never said it was supposed to be.
So did the press, and yet they were expressly granted this freedom. Buying a printing press and starting your own paper wasn't easy either, but the 1st amendment never said it was supposed to be.
> If all my friends are on Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat, then I am forced to use those.
You are not forced to use those, nor any social media platform. Nor are you entitled to the use of any social media platform, legally anyway.
You WANT to use them, but that's much different from being forced. Being forced would mean everyone who gets a US drivers license also gets a facebook account.
You are not forced to use those, nor any social media platform. Nor are you entitled to the use of any social media platform, legally anyway.
You WANT to use them, but that's much different from being forced. Being forced would mean everyone who gets a US drivers license also gets a facebook account.
I’m not saying this is a good or bad thing, I’m not smart enough to know yet, but what you describe isn’t new.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcast_(person)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication
Acting/speaking on specific ideas have caused people to be outcast, “social pariahs”, and excommunicated for millennia.
What is new today is the scale that people can reach, and the ability to excommunicate a person’s scale without excommunicating them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcast_(person)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication
Acting/speaking on specific ideas have caused people to be outcast, “social pariahs”, and excommunicated for millennia.
What is new today is the scale that people can reach, and the ability to excommunicate a person’s scale without excommunicating them.
[deleted]
None of that is technically censorship. They are all private companies and they have the prerogative to give the users a TOS, which they can accept or not. That said, I do think that having more options is always good, a decentralized Internet is a richer Internet.
Just a nit-pick, but the suppression of speech by a private institution is still censorship, it's just not government censorship. I think maybe you were conflating it with the First Amendment, which applies only to the government and it's agents and not private companies.
In agreement with everything after your first sentence though.
In agreement with everything after your first sentence though.
Yes, it was a poor attempt of trying to explain the common misconception that the First Amendment applies to private business. You are correct, though, the word censorship is broader than that.
are TOS required by law that if they are enforced then they are enforced equally? i doubt it but it seems like a contract violation to selectively enforce the TOS.
If you break the TOS, then the service provider can take any actions they are entitled to in the TOS at their discretion. You can challenge the validity of the TOS, but you can't force the service provider to be good or fast at enforcing their TOS.
It's a free market as well as a land of free speech, so they can just find another hosting provider, or build their own servers. They can enable whatever kind of groups they choose, but that should in no way require other people or organizations to collaborate with them.
At some physical level (e.g. the backbone), I'd like to see laws that apply the 1st amendment to all US-controlled physical connectivity i.e. backbone operators cannot block traffic based on content, ever.
Above that, I'd prefer to see a more diverse business ecosystem so that AWS' business policies were just one of a larger set of possible choices you would have when picking a hosting solution (note: this doesn't just mean more companies, it means greater diversity of the AUPs on offer)
At that point, we could all do what I consider to be the right thing, and leave AWS or whoever to do whatever they want, confident that there were genuine alternatives available.
Above that, I'd prefer to see a more diverse business ecosystem so that AWS' business policies were just one of a larger set of possible choices you would have when picking a hosting solution (note: this doesn't just mean more companies, it means greater diversity of the AUPs on offer)
At that point, we could all do what I consider to be the right thing, and leave AWS or whoever to do whatever they want, confident that there were genuine alternatives available.
There’s is no line. AWS is a business. And one that caters to enterprise customers. Large enterprise customers don’t want to be cohosted with sites that are controversial. AWS has a history of kicking off controversial sites.
Another view is about what services on the internet should be considered a commons, particularly as more interaction shifts to online rather than in-person spaces. Physical commons are regulated through local action and laws with some basis in democratic action. Online commons are generally near-absolute dictatorships run by a for-profit company where the only restrictions are minor government regulations that would make them liable for users' actions under certain circumstances. Otherwise, any commons can purge users for essentially any reason with no input from those using the commons.
I won't suggest solutions to this at the moment other than to say there are more options that providing democratic power over existing private commons. There could be public online commons that are guaranteed to meet certain standards, for example, and for private spaces to not compete and subsume them. Though this is speaking vaguely - there are many potential discussions to have about what a public digital commons could look like.
I won't suggest solutions to this at the moment other than to say there are more options that providing democratic power over existing private commons. There could be public online commons that are guaranteed to meet certain standards, for example, and for private spaces to not compete and subsume them. Though this is speaking vaguely - there are many potential discussions to have about what a public digital commons could look like.
Why is this not a terrorism site to you?
It's been used to conduct a terrorist attack this week. It's being used to plan a terrorist attack in the coming days.
The creators were given a chance to clean house and take measures. They haven't.
So why is this not a terrorist platform in your mind? Is there a belief that Americans cannot be terrorists?
Edit: you added a clarification that these are not official terrorist groups as classified by intelligence agencies. However white supremacists are considered to be significant terrorist threats by many agencies. (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-...). Parler is a haven for unchecked white supremacy. Therefore it is reasonably classifiable as a terrorist site
It's been used to conduct a terrorist attack this week. It's being used to plan a terrorist attack in the coming days.
The creators were given a chance to clean house and take measures. They haven't.
So why is this not a terrorist platform in your mind? Is there a belief that Americans cannot be terrorists?
Edit: you added a clarification that these are not official terrorist groups as classified by intelligence agencies. However white supremacists are considered to be significant terrorist threats by many agencies. (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-...). Parler is a haven for unchecked white supremacy. Therefore it is reasonably classifiable as a terrorist site
The obvious line is incitement of violence. Most countries have codified this in law but the US has not I think?
can you define incitement of violence? is there an actual definition or is it a "I know it when I see it" type thing? also, incitement or not isn't the perpetrator of violence the guilty one? ... or has that changed?
It depends on the collective judgment of the attorneys working at the Department of Justice, and the judges hearing the case. Unfortunately, the DoJ is currently under the command of a person who has a vested interest in protecting "his" people, so attention to this issue has been lacking.
> can you define incitement of violence?
No, I'm no lawyer but there is a lot of legal precedent for this, at least in my country.
This and hate speech against groups are the only limitation on free speech where I live.
No, I'm no lawyer but there is a lot of legal precedent for this, at least in my country.
This and hate speech against groups are the only limitation on free speech where I live.
If you hire a hitman, both you and the hitman are guilty. I think the same standard could apply here.
As we have discovered, the sad answer to all those questions seems be be.
"Yes when it agrees with my political agenda"
"Yes when it agrees with my political agenda"
> Where do we draw the line on how we censor the internet?
If they are a private company and not a utility with a government granted monopoly then they can do what they want. So not okay for Verizon or the power company, but everyone else should be free to censor. It's their private property.
If they are a private company and not a utility with a government granted monopoly then they can do what they want. So not okay for Verizon or the power company, but everyone else should be free to censor. It's their private property.
For spam / malicious traffic / botnets, our answer to all of those is historically "Yes," and it's worked fine for the growth of the internet so far. It's of course much easier to get a lazy cloud host, registrar, or ISP to take someone offline if the FBI is involved and gets a court order, but it's always been the expectation that there's an abuse contact who will respond to reports from the general public. Every domain or netblock entry in WHOIS has an abuse contact, implying there's some consensus standard of "abuse."
Seems like free speech was tolerated until it began threatening the republic to me. There are some interesting questions with the power of companies but those questions existed long before this. Uncharted territory.
Giant corporations bring all sorts of problems.
However, I think the real question is, if you have qualms about them, why use them at all? There are alternatives. Generally, people use them because they want to reach the corps. audience, or want to use the corps. infrastructure because its 'easier' then building there own. If thats the case, you're basically saying you're 'okay' with them having all the rights the TOS grants them.
However, I think the real question is, if you have qualms about them, why use them at all? There are alternatives. Generally, people use them because they want to reach the corps. audience, or want to use the corps. infrastructure because its 'easier' then building there own. If thats the case, you're basically saying you're 'okay' with them having all the rights the TOS grants them.
People get hung up on whether a group is an officially recognized terrorist organization or not, as if a group needs to be labeled terrorists by a three letter government agency before they can terrorize people, throw bricks through windows, burn down churches, ransack capitols, kidnap governors, lynch people, etc. It's a meaningless distinction whether or not they are officially recognized as a terrorists by the government.
[deleted]
I’m drawing two lines. One is property rights. For each of your questions, is the person doing the “censoring” the owner of the product? If yes, then I’m morally fine with it. The second line, does the censoring make the product unusable to me? If yes, then I will stop using it.
Maybe that’s too extreme. I’m not above lobbying them if it’s a decision I don’t agree with. Lobbying could go as far as boycotting. But fundamentally I see my role as to be either a consumer or not.
Where do we draw the line on Infrastructure regulation?
The network, the platform-provider, the platform?
There is precedent for regulating the network. And Parler can run it's own server . I think there is enough competition in the platform space to allow platforms to regulate themselves.
The network, the platform-provider, the platform?
There is precedent for regulating the network. And Parler can run it's own server . I think there is enough competition in the platform space to allow platforms to regulate themselves.
AWS is not infrastructure. It is a service for which there is competition, as well as the option of rolling your own. Telcoms are infrastructure because generally there is not competition and you can't just run your own fiber.
[deleted]
“Slippery slope” is a logical fallacy.
For reasons I can’t quite figure out, HN will crucify you for equating correlation with causation, but seems incredibly fond of this equally invalid mode of reasoning.
For reasons I can’t quite figure out, HN will crucify you for equating correlation with causation, but seems incredibly fond of this equally invalid mode of reasoning.
The government designating terrorist groups is a bad yardstick, because US law enforcement can only designate foreign terrorist organizations.
There's a legitimate debate to be had on these issues but the speech we're seeing from the Far Right is well over the line of protected speech. It's now advocating civil war. The consequences of allowing it to continue should be obvious to any reasonable person after the assault on the US Capitol on Jan 6. That was just the beginning.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Paid platforms & the open internet is where this is going.
i see social media going back to servers and fiber. peering their physical network like in the old days. who wants to risk their entire enterprise on the whims of a "platform" provider?
I believe in property rights. The service is the property of the shareholders. They should be able to do what they want with their property so long as it isn’t breaking a law.
This is why I can’t understand some conservatives having an issue with this. It is principled to anyone who believes in the private ownership of property that they can ban whoever they want.
I also believe internet companies shouldn’t have special privileges. They should be responsible for anything illegal on their property they could reasonably be believed to know about. Especially so if the content is user generated and made public. Crowdsourcing should be a liability.
This is why I can’t understand some conservatives having an issue with this. It is principled to anyone who believes in the private ownership of property that they can ban whoever they want.
I also believe internet companies shouldn’t have special privileges. They should be responsible for anything illegal on their property they could reasonably be believed to know about. Especially so if the content is user generated and made public. Crowdsourcing should be a liability.
A line of "cannot police their userbase and prevent them from violently threatening other people on a regular basis" seems to pass the reasonable-person test to me.
(To be clear: I think Mark Zuckerberg and the actors at Facebook who have not handled their fomented genocides on Facebook and WhatsApp belong in the Hague. I am not precious about them, either.)
(To be clear: I think Mark Zuckerberg and the actors at Facebook who have not handled their fomented genocides on Facebook and WhatsApp belong in the Hague. I am not precious about them, either.)
It also passes the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" test - IMHO the US government can clearly regulate this sort of dangerous speech
Democrats in charge means dangerous speech is from the right. Republicans in charge means dangerous speech is from the left. they would continually declare opposition as the most dangerous of speech and pass/repeal laws accordingly. The supreme court wouldn't be able to keep up.
Corporations get to choose who they do business with, who’s on their platforms. If they don’t want to do business with a platform for hatred, violence, and fascism, they shouldn’t.
Of course they should have done this 4 years ago...
Of course they should have done this 4 years ago...
How about we look into censoring family environment? Why not to take kids away from the family and transfer them to the state so they are not exposed to racist parents? Where's the end to it?
PS I came from Soviet Union and this is not a theoretical idea.
PS I came from Soviet Union and this is not a theoretical idea.
right, if the people on parler are such a threat surely CPS should be taking their kids into protective custody. does anyone know if that's happening?
> Why not to take kids away from the family and transfer them to the state so they are not exposed to racist parents?
This isn't about racism. This is about a site that is unable/unwilling to stop itself from being a forum for inciting violence, terrorism, sedition, and treason.
This isn't about racism. This is about a site that is unable/unwilling to stop itself from being a forum for inciting violence, terrorism, sedition, and treason.
So you think racism is not a threat to our nation? We'll send you to the re-education camp!
A private corporation is not the government, they can stop you from using their platform, not sending you to a "re-education camp".
I am talking about next step. We need to fight extremism.
I see it more as a bunch of disparate entities all deciding Parler are a bunch of assholes and not doing business with them. Nobody's forcing their hand.
Also, you drew the line at actual terrorist group sites, and I think Parler is one of those. It doesn't matter if you agree or not, enough people at AWS (and other corps) agreed with me and took it down. Sucks to be a minority, huh?
As far as whether giant corps should be censoring content, it's nothing new. The fantasy of everybody running as an independent node of a distributed network is just that. Look how centralized Bitcoin has gotten.
Also, you drew the line at actual terrorist group sites, and I think Parler is one of those. It doesn't matter if you agree or not, enough people at AWS (and other corps) agreed with me and took it down. Sucks to be a minority, huh?
As far as whether giant corps should be censoring content, it's nothing new. The fantasy of everybody running as an independent node of a distributed network is just that. Look how centralized Bitcoin has gotten.
Regardless of my/your thoughts on Parler, godspeed to those engineers. Assuming a majority of Parler infra is hosted on AWS, and it wasn't built to be multi-cloud, moving hosting providers in ~36 hours seems like a herculean task.
They knew what they signed up for. Maybe they didn't know that a coup would end up planned on their app in the public, but it was nakedly obvious to everyone that Parler was going to go the route of Gab or Voat. Those who didn't jump ship a long time ago decided that that wasn't a problem for them.
Their bigger issue is going to be the fact that their resumes will be radioactive going forward. Reputation harm is actually a real thing; if Uber engineers struggled to get new jobs after all those bombshells years ago, these people's careers are probably de-facto over.
Their bigger issue is going to be the fact that their resumes will be radioactive going forward. Reputation harm is actually a real thing; if Uber engineers struggled to get new jobs after all those bombshells years ago, these people's careers are probably de-facto over.
Reminds me of that clerks episode: https://youtu.be/iQdDRrcAOjA?t=79
Was expecting to see a clip of Dante and Randal climbing up the building of Leonardo Leonardo. Your clip makes more sense.
>these people's careers are probably de-facto over.
You make a very bold assumption that none of the ~75 million Trump voters in the US are in tech hiring positions.
You make a very bold assumption that none of the ~75 million Trump voters in the US are in tech hiring positions.
I’m sure Alibaba, Tencent or Yandex is ready with a turnkey lift and shift solution.
I would be surprised to see Alibaba or Tencent host them. Are they known to host "extremist" content?
The Parler user base is pro-Trump and anti-China, they wouldn't support those hosts. Reddit already gets a lot of flak from their users because Tencent is a major investor.
Or they could just change their product to require approval of all posts until they get their moderation under control, and then not get kicked off of Amazon...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Reading Amazon's reasoning, tech companies are basically setting a standard that if you want to have user-generated content, you must have professional moderators. This seems like it will be a barrier to innovation.
No, it's not. AWS is saying "we don't believe that your volunteer moderators are gonna do their jobs, and you've already screwed up, and your CEO is out there saying he thinks this doesn't matter." That's a very different thing than "thou must have professional moderators".
Professional moderation is an option, but what you are actually obliged to do is ensure that your platform is not a hotbed of violent content. There are a lot of approaches to that, including aggressive bans of nuts before they get a critical mass. Given that Parler is where the nuts go when they get booted off Twitter, that was never in the cards.
Professional moderation is an option, but what you are actually obliged to do is ensure that your platform is not a hotbed of violent content. There are a lot of approaches to that, including aggressive bans of nuts before they get a critical mass. Given that Parler is where the nuts go when they get booted off Twitter, that was never in the cards.
Yep, I do think it's more of this and dealing with things on a case-by-case basis to asses a company's stance as opposed to setting a precedent. I have a hard time imagining aws booting off a company that is making a good faith attempt at moderation.
Counter argument: having dedicated moderation might just be the low bar, in the same way that there is the expectation that you pay your employees a reasonable salary or pay for other services required to run your business. If you can't afford to do these basic things you may not have a viable business model.
Aside: is Moderation as a Service the new shovel to be sold during the gold rush?
Aside: is Moderation as a Service the new shovel to be sold during the gold rush?
> Moderation as a Service the new shovel to be sold during the gold rush?
I've been wondering about that as well, given the chances that §230 will be revoked
Can someone spin up a competent ML based/human moderator hybrid to moderate comments at Internet scale? (Disqus?) and perhaps offer an insurance plan to webhosts?
I've been wondering about that as well, given the chances that §230 will be revoked
Can someone spin up a competent ML based/human moderator hybrid to moderate comments at Internet scale? (Disqus?) and perhaps offer an insurance plan to webhosts?
FB is spending a huge amount of money on this, because they have to pay a growing army of human moderators.
Here's a blog post about their ML moderation of hate speech.
Probably won't sell as a SaaS but shows the big value even with 230 in place
https://ai.facebook.com/blog/ai-advances-to-better-detect-ha...
Here's a blog post about their ML moderation of hate speech.
Probably won't sell as a SaaS but shows the big value even with 230 in place
https://ai.facebook.com/blog/ai-advances-to-better-detect-ha...
https://www.sentropy.com/ is a startup that appears to be doing this
Sentiment analysis tech, GPT-3 level AI, and some human moderators in the mix... Maybe it could scale?
I'm waiting for the announcement tomorrow of "AMS: Amazon Moderation Service"
I think the problem is scaling moderation. Even Facebook and Twitter haven’t solved that problem.
That sounds amazing. Good idea. I think you’re describing the next step in user-generated content. Amazon has repeatedly proven that AI algorithms can’t save us from computer-generated trash and Twitter and Facebook have shown that algorithms can’t save us from malicious hate mobs and military psyops. Human moderation was the right solution, and we’ve tried for two decades to dodge that duty. Welcome back at last, reality.
Incidentally, this is the legal standard you'd have if you get rid of Section 230 - you can either do literally no moderation at all (and be immediately overrun by spammers, scammers, and people using you as a numbers station for hosting pirated content), or you can employ a team of professional moderators such that no user-generated content says anything you wouldn't be willing to be legally seen as the speaker of.
I wouldn't be so doubtful. The Pirate Bay seems to always come back no matter what.
The only people who care deeply about suppressing TPB is a small cadre of copyright lobbyists who need to arse judges throughout the world to do their bidding every once in a while to show that they're tough on copyright crime. As far as enforcement priorities go it's a minor annoyance at best for both the justice system as well as the telcos and ISPs who get forced to block them.
Say it is a barrier to innovation. Is that a problem? Is the innovation that would occur, absent moderation, so valuable that we should allow the facilitation of anti-democratic coups in order to preserve it?
As engineers, we should understand trade-offs. We have more values than just "innovation!"
As engineers, we should understand trade-offs. We have more values than just "innovation!"
No provider wants the cesspool to be pinned on them. I get that emotionally, but this is nuts. Obviously they have the right to make these moves, but god knows what happens when the new administration starts reflecting on the role played by Big Tech in this mess. Washing hands long after infection, so to speak.
What happens when congress uses these moves as evidence that Big Tech acknowledges the need to take responsibility for harmful content and then expects the same moves made for much smaller stakes?
What happens when congress uses these moves as evidence that Big Tech acknowledges the need to take responsibility for harmful content and then expects the same moves made for much smaller stakes?
Do you think that by NOT responding to such violence, a Democratic congress wouldn't say "regulation is needed, since Big Tech is dropping the ball"?
Which is more likely, congress deciding regulation is needed when Big Tech acts proactively to take care of the worst of it, or congress deciding regulation is needed when they don't do anything?
Which is more likely, congress deciding regulation is needed when Big Tech acts proactively to take care of the worst of it, or congress deciding regulation is needed when they don't do anything?
This is the dictionary definition of the slippery slope logical fallacy.
The more I study human history, the more I am convinced that the slippery slope is not a logical fallacy.
There are principles and once those get principles get trampled in the name of expediency, it becomes easier for the next person the trample them further.
There are principles and once those get principles get trampled in the name of expediency, it becomes easier for the next person the trample them further.
Like when the American right-wing came up with the "domino theory" to justify paying any cost to defeat communists in Vietnam, since to failing to stop them would inevitably result in communists ruling the entire world.
And then the US lost the war, went home in disgrace, and the promised cascade of falling dominoes never happened.
And then the US lost the war, went home in disgrace, and the promised cascade of falling dominoes never happened.
Part of the reason why the dominos did not fall was that it extracted a very high cost. Vietnam was devastated by the war. Same thing with Cuba. Although not a direct invasion, the US sanctions on Cuba extracted a high cost.
Sometimes resistance can make a slope less slippery. With Donald Trump’s election in 2016, I believe the US was on a slippery slope to a very bad place. A lot of stuff were being normalized that should not be (overt racism). However, there was a lot of opposition and resistance which has probably helped stabilize the situation.
So no, just because a lot of resistance keeps you from sliding down the slippery slope, it does not mean the slippery slope is not real.
Sometimes resistance can make a slope less slippery. With Donald Trump’s election in 2016, I believe the US was on a slippery slope to a very bad place. A lot of stuff were being normalized that should not be (overt racism). However, there was a lot of opposition and resistance which has probably helped stabilize the situation.
So no, just because a lot of resistance keeps you from sliding down the slippery slope, it does not mean the slippery slope is not real.
There’s no truer fallacy than slippery slope cause however far you slide, there’s always further if you don’t look up.
Absolutely, but funny how often the fallacy plays out time and time again.
In three years, the slippery slope has gone from deplatforming a tiny handful of online Nazis to deplatforming the President and an app with 10 million users.
Well, in three years the president has gone from claiming that there were more people at his inauguration than there actually were, to undermining democracy by persisting for months in his claims of election fraud despite failing to produce any evidence for it in the courts (while ignoring a pandemic that is currently killing 3000 people a day in his country). How about that for a slippery slope?
I'm not sure the concerns of censorship change due to who or how many are espousing the toxic calls to violence. Nazi Germany had a Chancellor/Dictator, with 8.5 million in the Nazi party in 1945. The reason it's okay to deplatform Nazis today is not because their numbers have dwindled.
No it won't, because they aren't going to apply the standard consistently. It will be used against specific sites for political reasons.
I don't it's that far.
It's make a reasonable attempt to prevent illegal / violent content and don't purposely create a system meant to fail and flout that's the whole intention of your app (and in Parler's case brag about it to the NYTimes )
It's make a reasonable attempt to prevent illegal / violent content and don't purposely create a system meant to fail and flout that's the whole intention of your app (and in Parler's case brag about it to the NYTimes )
[deleted]
More like "fucking finally!" Also, there are plenty of communities (Reddit, Wikipedia, Steam forums, HN, etc.) with moderators that haven't devolved into a dystopian policed-speech nightmare.
Those communities are dwindling in number. Increasingly, you step out of line once with the Left-leaning mindset, you are muted or banned. And these moderators will tell you to go elsewhere.
Except Google, Apple, AWS, etc. are now actively ridding the Internet of that 'elsewhere'.
Funny how just a few short years ago Google & Co. justified running Stormfront off the internet because of their extreme views. Funny how in just a few steps the justification went from 'extreme views' to 'Alex and Milo' to 'they say things we don't like'. Good luck staying amused with what comes over the next couple years.
Except Google, Apple, AWS, etc. are now actively ridding the Internet of that 'elsewhere'.
Funny how just a few short years ago Google & Co. justified running Stormfront off the internet because of their extreme views. Funny how in just a few steps the justification went from 'extreme views' to 'Alex and Milo' to 'they say things we don't like'. Good luck staying amused with what comes over the next couple years.
I find it intereting that you equate banning people planning violence with the left-leaning mindset. I don't know if that's what you meant, but that's how it sounds.
> Increasingly, you step out of line once with the Left-leaning mindset, you are muted or banned.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
> Increasingly, you step out of line once with the Left-leaning mindset, you are muted or banned.
This isn't ideology-based. There is good moderation and bad moderation. the /r/conservative and former /r/T_D subreddits swing the ban hammers more liberally than any other subreddits I've seen.
This isn't ideology-based. There is good moderation and bad moderation. the /r/conservative and former /r/T_D subreddits swing the ban hammers more liberally than any other subreddits I've seen.
I think the next couple of years are gonna be great, for me, but maybe not for you.
so was the FDA?
What was their reasoning? I only saw this.
Amazon declined to comment on the suspension.
Amazon declined to comment on the suspension.
AWS's reasoning is included in the article; a direct copy of their email to Parler is quoted.
> Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms. It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service. It also seems that Parler is still trying to determine its position on content moderation. You remove some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency. Your CEO recently stated publicly that he doesn’t “feel responsible for any of this, and neither should the platform.” This morning, you shared that you have a plan to more proactively moderate violent content, but plan to do so manually with volunteers. It’s our view that this nascent plan to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts. This is further demonstrated by the fact that you still have not taken down much of the content that we’ve sent you. Given the unfortunate events that transpired this past week in Washington, D.C., there is serious risk that this type of content will further incite violence.
> Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms. It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service. It also seems that Parler is still trying to determine its position on content moderation. You remove some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency. Your CEO recently stated publicly that he doesn’t “feel responsible for any of this, and neither should the platform.” This morning, you shared that you have a plan to more proactively moderate violent content, but plan to do so manually with volunteers. It’s our view that this nascent plan to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts. This is further demonstrated by the fact that you still have not taken down much of the content that we’ve sent you. Given the unfortunate events that transpired this past week in Washington, D.C., there is serious risk that this type of content will further incite violence.
Thank you. It does seem like Amazon requires professional moderation when someone's service is used to incite violence.
I wonder if this is in part due to concerns about revising section 230.
I wonder if this is in part due to concerns about revising section 230.
I think it's more that they require an effective strategy for removing content that violates their ToS—it's more that volunteer moderation isn't cutting it. Coupled with Parler's pretty obvious mission of intentionally providing a home for that content, it's really not surprising that AWS is reaching this decision.
Repealing section 230 would lead to many more proactive measures like this, by all platforms.
Repealing section 230 would lead to many more proactive measures like this, by all platforms.
My sibling here has the official response but I'll just add that "inciting violence" probably refers to a very out in the open effort to interrupt Biden's inauguration
Why do these companies suddenly now care about enforcing the mantra of the integrity of the electoral system now, and not in 2016?
Why do these companies suddenly now care about sites hosting content that encourages violent activity now, and not in June?
Why do these companies suddenly now care about sites hosting content that encourages violent activity now, and not in June?
Because the Democrats have the presidency, senate, and house.
Corporations have been sucking up to the powerful since forever.
Corporations have been sucking up to the powerful since forever.
It's a damning indictment of "big tech" that it took Democrats having a trifecta in federal government and a violent mob breaking into the Capitol during a congressional session to get this level of investment in moderating, well after the hate on their platform has metastasized.
My feeling is that from the business point of view the big tech do want regulation, the infrastructure needed to moderate contents will carb competition and cement their leader role.
The thing is that the leadership of these companies feels bad about censoring contents on moral grounds. They thing deeply about these issues, they are smart good passionate people who care about their product and society.
Now that the demand for censoring data is unstoppable they will comply. They will also slowly evolve to start buying politicians (with all the reserves they have) to have a say in the legislation. Just like big pharma, mikitary industry, oil companies, cigarettes business and some others.
The thing is that the leadership of these companies feels bad about censoring contents on moral grounds. They thing deeply about these issues, they are smart good passionate people who care about their product and society.
Now that the demand for censoring data is unstoppable they will comply. They will also slowly evolve to start buying politicians (with all the reserves they have) to have a say in the legislation. Just like big pharma, mikitary industry, oil companies, cigarettes business and some others.
[deleted]
Because a major news event happened just a few days ago that removed all ambiguity or uncertainty about the seriousness of the issue.
I think partially, they were afraid of political retribution from a very vindictive Executive. That threat is no longer a long-term threat.
[deleted]
January 6, 2021.
Better put your cash in some kind of asset because inflation is about to go through the roof.
We are all smart people no? Can we not see what's going on, Twitter in their early days was very proud they started civil wars in the Arab spring.
This is clearly a power move to block competition, all places on the internet where many people group together start out as trash. Content moderation is only possible when you have network effects that people can't leave. Its similar to not putting ads on your new trending startup.
Moderation will now be used to block all new social media startups because you can not bootstrap moderation.
I'm very concerned what is happening. These companies have far too much power.
This is clearly a power move to block competition, all places on the internet where many people group together start out as trash. Content moderation is only possible when you have network effects that people can't leave. Its similar to not putting ads on your new trending startup.
Moderation will now be used to block all new social media startups because you can not bootstrap moderation.
I'm very concerned what is happening. These companies have far too much power.
> This is clearly a power move to block competition
I really do not agree at all. Not all social media sites start like 4chan nor do I think this move started to squash competition. There's a legitimate need being served to preserve the commonwealth in silencing these communities, especially after recent events.
For what it's worth, what competition is Parler to AWS anyways? Aren't they a customer? Shouldn't amazon want them to grow beyond belief so they can be a whale of a customer?
I really do not agree at all. Not all social media sites start like 4chan nor do I think this move started to squash competition. There's a legitimate need being served to preserve the commonwealth in silencing these communities, especially after recent events.
For what it's worth, what competition is Parler to AWS anyways? Aren't they a customer? Shouldn't amazon want them to grow beyond belief so they can be a whale of a customer?
The whole Parler thing is very interesting to me. Many people point out that Twitter, Facebook, and other social networks have the same TOS violating content that Parler does but I wonder if this will come down to a "reasonable attempt" situation like Youtube copyright.
Youtube and later on Twitch got into trouble with the RIAA and other major media groups because Youtube allows users to upload copyrighted material. I believe the result of the lawsuit vs Viacom was that Google has to make a reasonable attempt to keep copyright material off Youtube which brought about the ContentID system.
Circling this back to Parler, Twitter and Facebook both have the same type of "hate speech" that Parler does that would violate Google's, Apple's, and AWS ToS but the difference is they can make the claim they make a "reasonable attempt" to keep those comments off while Parler does not.
There's also the argument that now that the Democrats are in charge, the heads at FAANG is increasingly worried about regulation and getting broken up so it's in their best interest to take a harder stance on this. I think the coming months will be very interesting.
Youtube and later on Twitch got into trouble with the RIAA and other major media groups because Youtube allows users to upload copyrighted material. I believe the result of the lawsuit vs Viacom was that Google has to make a reasonable attempt to keep copyright material off Youtube which brought about the ContentID system.
Circling this back to Parler, Twitter and Facebook both have the same type of "hate speech" that Parler does that would violate Google's, Apple's, and AWS ToS but the difference is they can make the claim they make a "reasonable attempt" to keep those comments off while Parler does not.
There's also the argument that now that the Democrats are in charge, the heads at FAANG is increasingly worried about regulation and getting broken up so it's in their best interest to take a harder stance on this. I think the coming months will be very interesting.
[deleted]
Twitter, Facebook, &c absolutely make a reasonable attempt - stuff this blatant does not tend to survive long on their platforms.
That short-lived content still has effects, but they're not in the Parler bucket of refusing on principle to moderate.
That short-lived content still has effects, but they're not in the Parler bucket of refusing on principle to moderate.
I think this is getting lost in these threads. Parlor's intent and as you say 'reasonable attempt' at moderation.
It seems that Parlor explicitly designed their moderation to fail and not actually moderate anything.
It seems that Parlor explicitly designed their moderation to fail and not actually moderate anything.
I guess my issue with this is while I can understand the reasoning, isn’t the logical conclusion to this that the entire chain of technology involved in communication tools today theoretically can provide each company involved a veto based on what those bits are causing on humans? If your CPU detects hate speech, should it be able to shut down and refund your money? If your operating system does? I understand there is a line somewhere apparently around “services” but as all computing moves towards service oriented pricing, won’t this veto power become all encompassing?
It seems to be the current legal situation that internet service providers can choose who they do business with.
That doesn't mean that is the only possible regulatory regime, or that it is an inevitable path to some particular outcome.
Is there some carrot we could feed AWS to get them to give up the choice of who to do business with?
That doesn't mean that is the only possible regulatory regime, or that it is an inevitable path to some particular outcome.
Is there some carrot we could feed AWS to get them to give up the choice of who to do business with?
This isn't a technology problem / solution. It's a people problem. Parler refuses to moderate hate speech / violence, instead choosing to selectively moderate, similar to a white supremacists message board / etc. Amazon, et. al. don't host those kinds of sites, and Parler is no different.
This is an incredibly sort timeframe to expect someone to be able to migrate off AWS. If there infrastructure is docker, or K8 than they can move quickly, but if they are tied into more than a couple of AWS specific services like Route 53 or Lambda then a migration is a big ask.
There is no ask. That they are even getting a migration period is very gracious of Amazon. When the decision to ban was made, Parler ceased being a customer and became a liability - one that AWS would presumably try to get rid of as fast as possible. They have no responsibility to keep their services open for Parler.
They do have a responsibility to allow customers to migrate in reasonable time frames. This move tells every other AWS customer: “be ready to move at a moments notice.” That’s not a good thing for AWS.
It says more: “don’t get caught providing a service for terrorists organizing violent acts”... AWS doesn’t want your business. Neither does anyone else. Nor do they want to be legally liable in any way. So if you’re in that business you probably should not host on US based providers of any kind.
The funny thing is that HN wants to get rid of Section 230, yet when these services dispense rhetoric that might bite them in the ass, HN gets upset.
> "The funny thing is that HN wants"
HN doesn't want anything. Or if it does, you—as a member of HN—want it, too. If you're going to grant an exception to yourself, grant it to others here, as well.
HN is a huge community of humans. Those that post things on what you perceive as arguing one position are probably not the same ones you're seeing arguing the opposite. And even if they are, humans are well known for inconsistency.
HN doesn't want anything. Or if it does, you—as a member of HN—want it, too. If you're going to grant an exception to yourself, grant it to others here, as well.
HN is a huge community of humans. Those that post things on what you perceive as arguing one position are probably not the same ones you're seeing arguing the opposite. And even if they are, humans are well known for inconsistency.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend for the sake of other's comfort that 230 Repeal isn't the majority opinion in this site.
We tend to remember things that catch our attention over things that we think are normal, which can bias us to believe there's a higher number of voices against us than there actually are.
That's not to say that perhaps there's not a majority, but I don't think we can assess that without some real numbers. Do you have those? If so, what was your methodology?
That's not to say that perhaps there's not a majority, but I don't think we can assess that without some real numbers. Do you have those? If so, what was your methodology?
...If you welcome organized violence at a national scale
Oh so basically every Democrat in 2020.
Most customers will probably be insulated from these kinds of decisions due to not hosting hate speech and calls for violence.
As long as those definitions never change, which of course they constantly do. By today's standards, the wildly popular TV show 'Friends' is full of hate speech. Who knows what will be considered hate speech tomorrow.
Well, the bar seems pretty high at
"Your users committed an act of insurrection against the current legitimate democratic government"
"Your users committed an act of insurrection against the current legitimate democratic government"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_coup_d'état_attem...
Please ban facebook now
Please ban facebook now
I don't personally use FB for a multitude of reasons.
But they are self hosted, so AWS isn't going to be banning them any time soon.
But they are self hosted, so AWS isn't going to be banning them any time soon.
>Whatabout Facebook
Facebook doesn't use AWS, and at least attempts to moderate calls to violence.
Facebook doesn't use AWS, and at least attempts to moderate calls to violence.
> "Your users committed an act of insurrection against the current legitimate democratic government"
If this is the bar, then it was met by a coup attempt organized on whatsapp in 2016. There's nothing whatabout about it.
If this is the bar, then it was met by a coup attempt organized on whatsapp in 2016. There's nothing whatabout about it.
Everything,
Everything will eventually be considered hate speech. Every idea is offensive to someone.
Everything will eventually be considered hate speech. Every idea is offensive to someone.
Have you seen the Office? Absolutely packed with harmful hate speech and violent tropes.
Chances are, Parler has had numerous warnings. AWS would not spring this on a customer without forewarning.
this is from left wing cancel culture organizations rallying to shutdown the platform where conservative audiences were migrating. Like Apple, Google and others, this is a coordinate effort to quickly silence opposing voices.
Well Jan 6th was 3 days ago.
Yes, but how many warnings did they receive before January 6th?
What engineering team is going to want to tie themselves deeply to a system that builds a reputation for kicking clients off with a 1 day notice?
Many of the biggest companies in the world and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
No one who is in a benign industry like insole inserts, or automotive parts is looking at Parler, and thinking "that could be us". Don't be ridiculous.
Activists.
Engineering teams that aren't building apps for terrorists of course.
Agreed. Though I'd point out this it's an incredibly long time to leave the infrastructure in place when there is active planning of further violence taking place on the platform.
IF that was actually the case then law enforcement would be involved and Parler would follow their instructions. As they have in the past.
Law enforcement are involved; they were photographed at the capitol assisting the invaders.
Apparently the cop that shot and killed an unarmed women didn’t get the memo.
A mob was literally breaking in the room where the VP and other politicians were. Yelling that "Pence must die" ( on some of them videos).
You can literally see some messages that were on Parler in the articles were Amazon, is banning Parler: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p... . That's crazy talk
You can literally see some messages that were on Parler in the articles were Amazon, is banning Parler: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p... . That's crazy talk
[deleted]
Based on reading the LinkedIn of the Parler execs, their code is node.js and some Go with Cassandra and Postgres for storage and RabbitMQ for queuing. That sounds like it will run anywhere they can rent a pile of Linux boxes.
They've tried to avoid lock-in, specifically mentioning avoiding any Google technologies in their mobile apps. However, they are using Route53 for DNS, Cloudfront as a CDN, and ALB for load balancing, so there are a few commodity services they'll need to swap out.
They've tried to avoid lock-in, specifically mentioning avoiding any Google technologies in their mobile apps. However, they are using Route53 for DNS, Cloudfront as a CDN, and ALB for load balancing, so there are a few commodity services they'll need to swap out.
It takes more than that to host a site like Parler. They need load balancing, a CDN for performance (good luck there), and security protections (DDoS, in particular). You know any site they stand up will be a prime hacker target. They need some good network and security engineers to keep this site up.
Also depends a bit on how they set it up. If it was all done as code or config then they’re in luck. If they just used the GUI console they’re in real trouble. That will take them until past inauguration which I suspect is the point.
Good riddance to Parler
Good riddance to Parler
Comment on r/aws:
>I am praying and hoping that Parler chose to use DynamoDB, Cognito, API GW, lambda functions, SnS//SQS , Cloudwatch etc. :-D
>I am praying and hoping that Parler chose to use DynamoDB, Cognito, API GW, lambda functions, SnS//SQS , Cloudwatch etc. :-D
According to the CEO's post, it seems Parler's engineering was smart and didn't rely on any proprietary AWS services.
Censorship is always good and never used to suppress truth or hide embarrassing actions of the powerful elite.
> If there infrastructure is docker, or K8 than they can move quickly
It's only a matter of time before software updates are used for deplatforming too.
It's only a matter of time before software updates are used for deplatforming too.
AWS and Google just showed how extremely untrustful their platforms are. If they can just close any account with a very short notice, without any court decision, then I don't really want to use such a horrible cloud system.
Nice website you got there. It would be a shame if some anonymous trolls posted more illegal content than your moderators could handle, and forced you off of every platform. You're in luck, we provide an online troll protection service. For a monthly fee, we'll make sure that trolls don't bother you.
Would be a shame if the Parler CEO literally refused to moderate his platform even when warned of the consequences multiple times.
Nooo! Amazon HAS to let me use their business! The first amendment says so!!!!!
Nooo! Amazon HAS to let me use their business! The first amendment says so!!!!!
Could you explain what this has to do with my point please, as I haven't defended Parler nor have I criticized the deplatforming?
If you aren't referring to Parler or deplatforming then you have either posted in the wrong thread on accident or are throwing out some really low-effort bait.
>If you aren't referring ... deplatforming
You are misrepresenting me. I said I didn't criticize their deplatforming, not that I am not commenting on deplatforming.
My point, since we seem to be intentionally missing it to instead construct strawmans (prions comment) or throw around accusations of bad faith (your comment), is that there is a danger in turning deplatforming into a weapon that criminals can use against people who are unable to afford to hire teams of effective moderators.
You are misrepresenting me. I said I didn't criticize their deplatforming, not that I am not commenting on deplatforming.
My point, since we seem to be intentionally missing it to instead construct strawmans (prions comment) or throw around accusations of bad faith (your comment), is that there is a danger in turning deplatforming into a weapon that criminals can use against people who are unable to afford to hire teams of effective moderators.
(Attempt 2)
>I said I didn't criticize their deplatforming
Saying that something is at risk of being weaponized is pretty close to criticism imo.
>I said I didn't criticize their deplatforming
Saying that something is at risk of being weaponized is pretty close to criticism imo.
When and if that actually happens, we will have to figure out some way to deal with that problem.
>I am not commenting on deplatforming.
>there is a danger in turning deplatforming into a weapon
Seems like a comment to me.
>there is a danger in turning deplatforming into a weapon
Seems like a comment to me.
That's not how it works. The decision was entirely political. Twitter is full of assassination calls but it's in no danger of getting banned: https://twitter.com/hashtag/assassinatetrump .
Discussions are naturally taking this move to hypothetical extremes, but Apple's stance doesn't seem very inconsistent with previous actions. They're not demanding that Parler moderate anything and everything on their platform, but they aren't ready to allow a completely unmoderated platform that features blatant calls to violence and suggestions to execute public officials.
For what it's worth, it appears to be working. Parler is starting to remove the most egregious calls to violence, such as Lin Wood's famous call to prepare firing squads to use against the Vice President of the United States: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/parler-reportedly-removed-pos...
For what it's worth, it appears to be working. Parler is starting to remove the most egregious calls to violence, such as Lin Wood's famous call to prepare firing squads to use against the Vice President of the United States: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/parler-reportedly-removed-pos...
Apple's stance is very consistent with their history of inconsistent action. Where Apple sees a problem, they act.
It was never a fair expectation that Parler would be able to scale up moderation in 24 hours.
So this was in effect a rigged deadline, somewhat analogous to a "Performance Improvement Plan".
So this was in effect a rigged deadline, somewhat analogous to a "Performance Improvement Plan".
Apple has been trying to get them to implement moderation for months, they just gave them the 24 hours as an ultimatum after not getting anywhere with them and the real world situation escalating.
[citation needed]
> It was never a fair expectation that Parler would be able to scale up moderation in 24 hours.
Apple asked for a plan, not for an implementation.
From Apple's letter:
> In addition [to removing the death threat examples in the letter], you must respond to this message with detailed information about how you intend to moderate and filter this content from your app, and what you will do to improve moderation and content filtering your service for this kind of objectionable content going forward.
Apple asked for a plan, not for an implementation.
From Apple's letter:
> In addition [to removing the death threat examples in the letter], you must respond to this message with detailed information about how you intend to moderate and filter this content from your app, and what you will do to improve moderation and content filtering your service for this kind of objectionable content going forward.
They did. And Apple had a (likely pre-determined) response:
> We have determined that the measures you describe are inadequate to address the proliferation of dangerous and objectionable content on your app.
I'm not sure Apple is acting in good faith here. What is considered adequate? Facebook has had all sorts of crazy stuff on it like the Christchurch shooting (and regularly also abuses iOS API's) and has never been taken down.
> We have determined that the measures you describe are inadequate to address the proliferation of dangerous and objectionable content on your app.
I'm not sure Apple is acting in good faith here. What is considered adequate? Facebook has had all sorts of crazy stuff on it like the Christchurch shooting (and regularly also abuses iOS API's) and has never been taken down.
Amazon's letter noted 2 things: They said they were going to use volunteer moderators to fix it, and their CEO said it wasn't really their problem anyway.
So it's possible Apple also took those things into account and was able to determine it just wasn't going to work out, and there was no need to go any further.
If you read Amazon's letter where they inform Parler they're kicked off, which you can find in the Buzzfeed News article, it sounds pretty cut and dry.
So it's possible Apple also took those things into account and was able to determine it just wasn't going to work out, and there was no need to go any further.
If you read Amazon's letter where they inform Parler they're kicked off, which you can find in the Buzzfeed News article, it sounds pretty cut and dry.
Parler and its issues have existed for a lot longer than 24 hours. This isn't the first time they been told, this is just the first time its resulted in the lost of life.
An impossible deadline in other contexts can of course be designed to be impossible for petty reasons, but when the object in question is a runaway train, you can't really wait to pull the plug. You can only give them as long as possible, and must prioritize safety.
A need for moderation was surely not a surprise.
Using a lack of moderation as your selling point and then being surprised by such a deadline when you intentionally host content that doesn't tally with the platform you're on seems short-sighted.
The intent is likely to not moderate - it'd kill the platform. It remains accessible by web. Does it need a native app?
Using a lack of moderation as your selling point and then being surprised by such a deadline when you intentionally host content that doesn't tally with the platform you're on seems short-sighted.
The intent is likely to not moderate - it'd kill the platform. It remains accessible by web. Does it need a native app?
If 75 million trump voters want an app. The “does it need an app” question is a moot point.
Ultimately the market will sort this out.
Ultimately the market will sort this out.
That's not quite fair.
Parler is listed at 2.8 million total users back in July.[0] Assuming that's doubled and all lean towards Trump, that still represents a fair minority of voters.
The website remains there for those users that want to use the platform, but curated app stores that aim to promote certain values (and are fairly clear about those values) don't seem to be the right place for these platforms that devolve into highly controversial places.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler#Usage
Parler is listed at 2.8 million total users back in July.[0] Assuming that's doubled and all lean towards Trump, that still represents a fair minority of voters.
The website remains there for those users that want to use the platform, but curated app stores that aim to promote certain values (and are fairly clear about those values) don't seem to be the right place for these platforms that devolve into highly controversial places.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler#Usage
You're missing the fact that this is a suspension, which can be reversed if Parler takes the required actions.
Sure it was a fair expectation, because that expectation was known before Parler even started up coding any apps. That's always been the rule. No hate speech, no illegal content, no direct threats of violence. Hardly an unfair expecation for Parler to meet those guidelines - the 24h notice seems to just be a kind gesture that wasn't really even necessary from Apple's part.
So.. embrace censorship or get de-platformed. Got it.
I don't use Parler, but this newfound love of censorship is going to end badly. How long until we start book burning because they promoted wrongthink?
I don't use Parler, but this newfound love of censorship is going to end badly. How long until we start book burning because they promoted wrongthink?
You think Apple should allow people to promote and plan violence on their platform? Really?
[deleted]
Make your own social media service, they said. Where does this end? What's the endgame?
The endgame is private, end-to-end encrypted group chats. Whatsapp is probably used just as much for insurrection planning but it's all dark to Facebook; they don't have to moderate it, because they have no visibility over it. Could be WhatsApp or anything else that offers end-to-end encryption.
This is the winner. I completely agree and see this going exactly here.
The net result will be that this end to end encryption becomes a terror for all governments - even ones that ride to power using these tools.
This means that the pressure to add backdoors or even front doors to this kind of content will win out. I'll assume that 10 years is enough time for that?
I really cant see any solution other than embracing dystopia.
The net result will be that this end to end encryption becomes a terror for all governments - even ones that ride to power using these tools.
This means that the pressure to add backdoors or even front doors to this kind of content will win out. I'll assume that 10 years is enough time for that?
I really cant see any solution other than embracing dystopia.
There will be pressure to add backdoors, but even without them it's not a complete loss — police methods used since time immemorial are able to get information on private groups (undercover infiltration, confidential informants, plea bargains, etc.)
Personally I think this is for the best, keeps extremism at the fringes instead of easily accessible.
No more aiding and abetting conspirators of mass-assassination events?
If you create an "anything goes" application, you better go into it knowing the main cloud providers probably are not going to keep you around if you do not adhere to their policy.
If their infrastructure is well engineered, this shouldn't make a difference. I don't have a lot of confidence in their founder though, he's always seemed in over his head.
If their infrastructure is well engineered, this shouldn't make a difference. I don't have a lot of confidence in their founder though, he's always seemed in over his head.
Parler are free to spin up their own servers.
No seriously how deep does this go? Private internet? Balkanize the world so that the only possible outcome is war?
This isn't being thought through.
This isn't being thought through.
I'm no longer convinced this isn't thought through. The Biden admin and big tech are working together on this.
No one has a right to incite violence.
I haven't used Parler but I'd wager the vast majority of its content isn't. If you want to pick out content, I guarantee I can match post for post with something identical on Twitter.
So why isn't Twitter being targeted?
If the organizing purpose of Parler was incitement and insurrection, sure. But it isn't. And that means they still get 230 protections whether you like it or not.
So why isn't Twitter being targeted?
If the organizing purpose of Parler was incitement and insurrection, sure. But it isn't. And that means they still get 230 protections whether you like it or not.
> So why isn't Twitter being targeted?
Because Twitter moderates and removes content that breaks the law.
Because Twitter moderates and removes content that breaks the law.
No it absolutely does not.
The incoming VP spent all summer doing exactly that
No one is going to Balkanize the internet over Parler. Just because Parler is near and dear to the readership on this site doesn't mean anyone else is going to make moves because of what's happening to it.
I think HN is more likely to have overlap with Mastodon and other federated networks. Most of us that seem to be arguing in support of Parler are really just worried about arbitrary and authoritarian approaches to content moderation and infrastructure.
HN is for discussing ideas even when they do not affect us directly.
HN is for discussing ideas even when they do not affect us directly.
Disclaimer: I have never used Parler.
But I firmly believe in the principle of free speech and not stifling discourse.
And no, not just over Parler. But maybe over Twitter bannings. And Facebook bannings. And Parler. And deplatforming. Eventually people will build their own internet you can't control, and continue to talk. How will you feel about that? Let's say for sake of argument that that occurs, that a whole segment of society builds their own hardware infrastructure that the tech giants do not control and cannot shut down. What would you want to happen?
But I firmly believe in the principle of free speech and not stifling discourse.
And no, not just over Parler. But maybe over Twitter bannings. And Facebook bannings. And Parler. And deplatforming. Eventually people will build their own internet you can't control, and continue to talk. How will you feel about that? Let's say for sake of argument that that occurs, that a whole segment of society builds their own hardware infrastructure that the tech giants do not control and cannot shut down. What would you want to happen?
Free speech concerns government suppression, the government hasn't been involved in the banning so principles concerning Free Speech have no place.
Free speech is not a right granted by the government, it is a principle and a natural right. We all have it.
The government has nothing to do with it.
Even if we all lived in anarchy, free speech would still be a thing.
The government has nothing to do with it.
Even if we all lived in anarchy, free speech would still be a thing.
DNS servers can refuse to list them. ISPs can block their IP. Landlords can refuse to rent to them. Banks can refuse to open accounts for them.
The world is so interconnected, and daily life depends on private companies so strongly, that if someone is disliked enough they can be made homeless, jobless and destitute.
"Spin up their own servers" is just the next step we're up to. It's by no means the last.
How deep does it go?
The world is so interconnected, and daily life depends on private companies so strongly, that if someone is disliked enough they can be made homeless, jobless and destitute.
"Spin up their own servers" is just the next step we're up to. It's by no means the last.
How deep does it go?
Not if we know their names and shame anyone who sells them hardware, they won't be.
You can buy secondhand servers in loads of places with cash purchases. The boys on /r/datahoarder do it all the time. This isn't rocket science, but perhaps I'm overestimating the type of people who would would run a service like Parler.
Don't they get most of their hardware off eBay these days? (Not that I'm incredibly familiar with that space - I'm more interested in serious redundancy for small important files.)
Anyway, the government has plenty of experience handling terrorists dealing in cash. It doesn't need to be perfect.
Anyway, the government has plenty of experience handling terrorists dealing in cash. It doesn't need to be perfect.
Starve fascism of air? Isn’t it obvious?
What a time for news. It was only two hours ago when I wrote: "I'm curious if this will also escalate to low-level platforms (will hosting companies, registrars, or even ISPs start taking similar actions on a regular basis?)" when Apple removed the app, following Google Play from yesterday.
It would seem this cycle is certainly not done perpetuating itself as of yet. I think we are going to have some rough times ahead of us unfortunately. I have no interest in this app or those on it, but they are probably going to get much more upset and feel much more persecuted.
It would seem this cycle is certainly not done perpetuating itself as of yet. I think we are going to have some rough times ahead of us unfortunately. I have no interest in this app or those on it, but they are probably going to get much more upset and feel much more persecuted.
> I have no interest in this app or those on it, but they are probably going to get much more upset and feel much more persecuted.
The nature of fascism (as outlined in Umberto Eco's essay in the matter) is that they will use both victimization as well as victory as means to further the narrative that they and only they should hold power.
In practice, there movements are much more cowardly than they appear, which is why the crushing of fascist movements has been either actively violent, ostracizing, and causing embarrassment to its followers.
The nature of fascism (as outlined in Umberto Eco's essay in the matter) is that they will use both victimization as well as victory as means to further the narrative that they and only they should hold power.
In practice, there movements are much more cowardly than they appear, which is why the crushing of fascist movements has been either actively violent, ostracizing, and causing embarrassment to its followers.
Lets just hope its not crushed by communists, like it was last time.
When Egyptian government turns off internet during a revolution, we call them tyrants and celebrate Twitter for allowing people to communicate freely. Yet, when US turns off a side of an argument the marginally elected majority disagrees with, we praise it.
Everything is fine...
Everything is fine...
Not US. Amazon is a private company. Their main goal is to make money (i.e. increase company value for their investors), they decided that this activity will eventually hurt making money. End of story.
Americans sure like this bad faith argument.
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...
If you're free to communicate anything on public owned spaces on the internet but there are no public owned spaces on the internet, then you're not free to communicate on the internet.
You've privatized censorship and still call yourself a free country.
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...
If you're free to communicate anything on public owned spaces on the internet but there are no public owned spaces on the internet, then you're not free to communicate on the internet.
You've privatized censorship and still call yourself a free country.
One side of the argument? Or armed insurrectionists?
Are you generalizing 10's of millions of people?
not generalizing. new marist polling shows ~20% of Republicans approved of the supporters breaking into the US capitol. back of napkin math puts that around 16 million people.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/most-americans-blame-t...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/most-americans-blame-t...
To be on a tech site and say US == Amazon is basically trolling.
A parler message quoted in this article:
“On Jan * we need to start systematically assassinating liberal leaders, liberal activists, BLM activists...”
I’m not on parler but it seems like this stuff is not uncommon there and since they aren’t a huge company it seems like it would be tough to moderate it.
I consider myself to be a proponent of free speech, but I also think you are crazy if you don’t put limits on it.
“On Jan * we need to start systematically assassinating liberal leaders, liberal activists, BLM activists...”
I’m not on parler but it seems like this stuff is not uncommon there and since they aren’t a huge company it seems like it would be tough to moderate it.
I consider myself to be a proponent of free speech, but I also think you are crazy if you don’t put limits on it.
A message on Twitter:
> Someone take this clown out NOW! #assassinatetrump utter evil this man! #DonaldTrump
I’m on Twitter and it seems like this stuff is not uncommon there and since they are a huge company it seems like it wouldn't be tough to moderate it.
I consider myself to be a proponent of free speech, but I also think you are crazy if you don’t put limits on it.
> Someone take this clown out NOW! #assassinatetrump utter evil this man! #DonaldTrump
I’m on Twitter and it seems like this stuff is not uncommon there and since they are a huge company it seems like it wouldn't be tough to moderate it.
I consider myself to be a proponent of free speech, but I also think you are crazy if you don’t put limits on it.
As an AWS employee: Good. It's about time.
Before the 6th, everyone was just acting like far-right seditionists and accelerationists were bumbling fools LARPING around. After the 6th, it's become clear that the LARPs are actually serious. It's time we take them serious.
Does Parler have the right to exist on the internet? Yeah. But it doesn't have a right to use other peoples' infrastructure to exist.
AWS was complicit until now. There's still work to be done regarding what AWS enables, but there's one less thing AWS is complicit in.
Before the 6th, everyone was just acting like far-right seditionists and accelerationists were bumbling fools LARPING around. After the 6th, it's become clear that the LARPs are actually serious. It's time we take them serious.
Does Parler have the right to exist on the internet? Yeah. But it doesn't have a right to use other peoples' infrastructure to exist.
AWS was complicit until now. There's still work to be done regarding what AWS enables, but there's one less thing AWS is complicit in.
Well, you've just lost me as a customer for life. I had no horse in the game and condemn the violence on both sides - I just value free speech. I hope to see this censorship punished by the market and reflected in Amazon's stock price as well. I'm not a big fish but I'll take my couple thousand/mo elsewhere.
Cool. You're a rounding error of a rounding error of a rounding error for AWS. Amazon's stock price is doing really good and is only going to improve.
It's important to note that AWS didn't change any policies. It just found the backbone to enforce them. AWS never allowed free speech; there have always been terms of service. I guess you just ignored the fact that the ToS exists in exchange for the stability and ease AWS provided you. But now you can't ignore that and reconcile your beliefs with your past behavior (i.e. using AWS as a platform). So AWS has to go. That's cool. AWS will survive.
I would suggest you show ideological consistency and take AWS skills off your resume. It weakens your stance considerably if you're using AWS's clout to market yourself to employers. Take a stand. Refuse to use AWS in a professional capacity.
Free speech doesn't require access to AWS. If there is a large market for violent far-right LARPing, the market will adjust and some AWS competitor rise to host white supremacist and white-supremacist-adjacent LARPers. And you can give them your money because you support their stance on allowing Parler and its ilk to use its platform.
It's important to note that AWS didn't change any policies. It just found the backbone to enforce them. AWS never allowed free speech; there have always been terms of service. I guess you just ignored the fact that the ToS exists in exchange for the stability and ease AWS provided you. But now you can't ignore that and reconcile your beliefs with your past behavior (i.e. using AWS as a platform). So AWS has to go. That's cool. AWS will survive.
I would suggest you show ideological consistency and take AWS skills off your resume. It weakens your stance considerably if you're using AWS's clout to market yourself to employers. Take a stand. Refuse to use AWS in a professional capacity.
Free speech doesn't require access to AWS. If there is a large market for violent far-right LARPing, the market will adjust and some AWS competitor rise to host white supremacist and white-supremacist-adjacent LARPers. And you can give them your money because you support their stance on allowing Parler and its ilk to use its platform.
> I guess you just ignored the fact that the ToS exists in exchange for the stability and ease AWS provided you. But now you can't ignore that and reconcile your beliefs with your past behavior (i.e. using AWS as a platform). So AWS has to go. That's cool. AWS will survive.
This reads like a dramatic breakup prompted by an affair.
This reads like a dramatic breakup prompted by an affair.
Did you just group me - a cuban-venezuelan-american - with white supremacists? This is quite rude. I am familiar wih AWS so I'll leave it on my resume, thanks for the unwelcome advice - though I certainly will advocate my employers choose something else. You don't care about me as a "rounding error" and thats fine. Sad to see that anti-free speech is so pervasive at Amazon that you actually feel comfortable being so arrogant, ignorant, and impolite.
[deleted]
> Did you just group me - a cuban-venezuelan-american - with white supremacists?
I parse their comment as talking about others and not saying anything about you personally (unless they edited their comment).
> you actually feel comfortable being so arrogant, ignorant, and impolite.
I think that you have fired up, stepped across the boundary to making a personal attack, which is against the https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I parse their comment as talking about others and not saying anything about you personally (unless they edited their comment).
> you actually feel comfortable being so arrogant, ignorant, and impolite.
I think that you have fired up, stepped across the boundary to making a personal attack, which is against the https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It will not affect their stock.
[deleted]
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts regarding antifa’s actions in Portland and the BLM protests earlier in the year? Would you have any problem with AWS hosting their services and helping them organize?
I’m asking this question in good faith because I’m having a hard time separating the protest on Jan 6th from basically any other protest I saw last summer, including in DC.
I’m asking this question in good faith because I’m having a hard time separating the protest on Jan 6th from basically any other protest I saw last summer, including in DC.
I'm not going to even pretend this is a good-faith question.
Protests in Portland and other places led to mostly property damage. There were a few deaths, and that sucks. But it wasn't uniformly violence coming from antifa. And the protests were in support of racial and social justice.
On the other hand we witnessed the following on the 6th (among too many other things to mention):
1.) A literal gallows erected on Capitol Hill 2.) Thousands of people entering secured areas of a government building. 3.) A police officer literally beat to death with a fire extinguisher
This was all in an attempt to overthrow a democratic election. These were insurrectionists intent on using domestic terrorism to overthrow the American government and the concept of American democracy itself.
---
That is to say, what we witnessed with BLM protests is completely and diametrically opposite to what we witnessed with the so-called Patriot movement on the 6th.
I have absolutely no problem with social justice advocates using AWS as a platform. I do have a problem with domestic terrorists and their enablers using AWS as a platform.
Protests in Portland and other places led to mostly property damage. There were a few deaths, and that sucks. But it wasn't uniformly violence coming from antifa. And the protests were in support of racial and social justice.
On the other hand we witnessed the following on the 6th (among too many other things to mention):
1.) A literal gallows erected on Capitol Hill 2.) Thousands of people entering secured areas of a government building. 3.) A police officer literally beat to death with a fire extinguisher
This was all in an attempt to overthrow a democratic election. These were insurrectionists intent on using domestic terrorism to overthrow the American government and the concept of American democracy itself.
---
That is to say, what we witnessed with BLM protests is completely and diametrically opposite to what we witnessed with the so-called Patriot movement on the 6th.
I have absolutely no problem with social justice advocates using AWS as a platform. I do have a problem with domestic terrorists and their enablers using AWS as a platform.
I guess what I’m looking for is some consistency in messaging. Right now it looks like tribe allegiance is the leading factor for opinions on Jan 6th and all of the other protests of 2020.
Tell me your tribe, and I’ll tell you your opinion.
Tell me your tribe, and I’ll tell you your opinion.
> If Apple, Google, Facebook and Twitter were acting in concert to raise prices, everyone would be up in arms. But acting in concert to repress speech, no big deal. Aren’t civil liberties supposed to be more important than money? [1]
[1] - https://twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/1347961063707471873
[1] - https://twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/1347961063707471873
The tech megacorps don't want another attempted coup d'etat to be promoted on their services in the next 10 days. A republic without strong institutions, responsible leaders, and a citizenry who truly believe in democratic values is just words on paper. Many republics just end when one person or tribe amasses too much power and then exploits an opportunity to seize absolute control.
Way to deliberately mischaracterize the First Amendment.
Do you know how long it took VW to erase the Nazi stench off of its brand? Beyond so many moral reasons for doing this, no one wants to be associated with a fascist movement. Hit to your brand is only exponential from here on out.
Glad I downloaded it yesterday since this was obviously an unrealistic deadline. It’s getting harder and harder to keep tabs on both sides now. Things have really fragmented in the past 24 hours: lots of posts on MeWe, Telegram, Gab, etc, looking for the “best” communication channel.
If you want to see all the calls for violence, they are streaming minute by minute on the donald site. Some even worse things today (I had to stop reading it because it's getting to the point of super illegal).
“Both sides” being people that want to hang the VP and those that don’t?
"Both sides" being people that set up "autonomous zones" in the center of the US and those that don't?
Won't it always be IRC through anonymous VPN and TOR?
I’m not saying it will be impossible to access, just harder for Average Joe who doesn’t understand App Store versus WWW.
It’s fascinating, if somewhat terrifying, watching communication channels breakdown for millions of people.
It’s fascinating, if somewhat terrifying, watching communication channels breakdown for millions of people.
It's not terrifying at all. It's is breaking apart proto-terrorist cells, if the posts on /r/ParlerWatch can be believed. Which is something both the left and the right in the US support, at least until recently.
The only way they would've made this deadline would've been to delete all of their posts.
I'm not upset in the slightest about them being gone, but I can kind of see the argument about how the app store is deciding how someone uses their phones here.
I'm not upset in the slightest about them being gone, but I can kind of see the argument about how the app store is deciding how someone uses their phones here.
Slippery slope is accelerating. Soon any wrongthink will get you banned by the tech cabal.
If by "wrongthink" you mean actively calling for and planning attacks on elected officials, I have no doubt that will continue to get you banned from all sorts of private enterprises.
I'm confident if I show up to work on Monday and start asking people on our slack channel who wants to help me plan an assassination on an elected official I'll also be "de-platformed" for my "wrong think" by my company.
This is a simple problem to to solve: stop planning and committing acts of violence because you disagree with someone else's politics. Nobody is getting banned because they think abortion is wrong or that we should try to balance the national deficit...
I'm confident if I show up to work on Monday and start asking people on our slack channel who wants to help me plan an assassination on an elected official I'll also be "de-platformed" for my "wrong think" by my company.
This is a simple problem to to solve: stop planning and committing acts of violence because you disagree with someone else's politics. Nobody is getting banned because they think abortion is wrong or that we should try to balance the national deficit...
Technically, Parlor the company didn't do anything you mentioned? They failed to moderate - but I mean, so has Facebook? So has the comment section of my old blog from 2001?
If a user posts a call to violence - well to hell with them and who cares if they get booted off - but this more like if Google was shut down because it had a search-result for a call to violence. Unless there is some statement from the Parlor company itself that calls for violence that I've missed.
Taken one step further, what is the difference between Parlor and AWS in this case - technically speaking, the calls for violence were on AWS's platform after all...
If a user posts a call to violence - well to hell with them and who cares if they get booted off - but this more like if Google was shut down because it had a search-result for a call to violence. Unless there is some statement from the Parlor company itself that calls for violence that I've missed.
Taken one step further, what is the difference between Parlor and AWS in this case - technically speaking, the calls for violence were on AWS's platform after all...
>Technically, Parlor the company didn't do anything you mentioned? They failed to moderate - but I mean, so has Facebook? So has the comment section of my old blog from 2001?
What does Facebook have to do with the current discussion? Facebook isn't hosted on Amazon.
>Taken one step further, what is the difference between Parlor and AWS in this case - technically speaking, the calls for violence were on AWS's platform after all...
I guess I don't understand what you're getting at. It was indeed on AWS's platform. As part of hosting content on AWS you agree to not allow content calling for violence against others. They failed to moderate their users, so Amazon is moderating them.
What does Facebook have to do with the current discussion? Facebook isn't hosted on Amazon.
>Taken one step further, what is the difference between Parlor and AWS in this case - technically speaking, the calls for violence were on AWS's platform after all...
I guess I don't understand what you're getting at. It was indeed on AWS's platform. As part of hosting content on AWS you agree to not allow content calling for violence against others. They failed to moderate their users, so Amazon is moderating them.
By this logic why was @blcklivesmatter not kicked off Twitter etc long ago?
>By this logic why was @blcklivesmatter not kicked off Twitter etc long ago?
Do you mean why wasn't twitter kicked off AWS for users making calls for violence? If so: because Twitter has a moderation strategy in place that clearly isn't perfect but has proven to AWS that they're taking it seriously.
If you actually meant why wasn't @blcklivesmatter kicked off twitter I guess I'm not sure what relevance that has to Parler being kicked off AWS. But my first guess would be: because they deleted the offending tweets and stopped making repeated posts calling for violence?
I don't use twitter, do you have some examples of recent @blcklivesmatter tweets that are actively calling for violence against elected officials that haven't been moderated or removed?
Do you mean why wasn't twitter kicked off AWS for users making calls for violence? If so: because Twitter has a moderation strategy in place that clearly isn't perfect but has proven to AWS that they're taking it seriously.
If you actually meant why wasn't @blcklivesmatter kicked off twitter I guess I'm not sure what relevance that has to Parler being kicked off AWS. But my first guess would be: because they deleted the offending tweets and stopped making repeated posts calling for violence?
I don't use twitter, do you have some examples of recent @blcklivesmatter tweets that are actively calling for violence against elected officials that haven't been moderated or removed?
Why is a moderation strategy required at all? If I wanted to create a platform which followed US law and nothing else, I would be instantly deplatformed. Really, all I need is a legal department.
>Why is a moderation strategy required at all? If I wanted to create a platform which followed US law and nothing else, I would be instantly deplatformed. Really, all I need is a legal department.
I know you created a throwaway to troll, but I'll humor you anyway. I could come up with endless reasons why a company would want to require moderation, but at the end of the day: because they say so. Amazon created the platform, Amazon creates the rules.
I find it mind numbing that the same people that want to live on Parler because "freedom" simultaneously think a private company shouldn't have the freedom to choose who they do or don't want as a customer. Meanwhile gay people can't buy a wedding cake and that's A-OK because freedom.
I know you created a throwaway to troll, but I'll humor you anyway. I could come up with endless reasons why a company would want to require moderation, but at the end of the day: because they say so. Amazon created the platform, Amazon creates the rules.
I find it mind numbing that the same people that want to live on Parler because "freedom" simultaneously think a private company shouldn't have the freedom to choose who they do or don't want as a customer. Meanwhile gay people can't buy a wedding cake and that's A-OK because freedom.
I did not create a throwaway to troll, but for safety. People have tried to harass me out of my job for being a conservative (not Trumper) before.
> I find it mind numbing that the same people that want to live on Parler because "freedom" simultaneously think a private company shouldn't have the freedom to choose who they do or don't want as a customer. Meanwhile gay people can't buy a wedding cake and that's A-OK because freedom.
There's plenty of hypocrisy here, I agree -- but the real issue is scale. Just a handful of companies in SV control the free flow of information, globally, and they're using that to suppress a group of people.
I'm not saying we should overturn their property rights, but that I disagree with them from a moral standpoint.
> I find it mind numbing that the same people that want to live on Parler because "freedom" simultaneously think a private company shouldn't have the freedom to choose who they do or don't want as a customer. Meanwhile gay people can't buy a wedding cake and that's A-OK because freedom.
There's plenty of hypocrisy here, I agree -- but the real issue is scale. Just a handful of companies in SV control the free flow of information, globally, and they're using that to suppress a group of people.
I'm not saying we should overturn their property rights, but that I disagree with them from a moral standpoint.
>Just a handful of companies in SV control the free flow of information, globally, and they're using that to suppress a group of people.
They absolutely, 100% do not. Nobody is forcing you to go to google or twitter for news, I don't and would encourage you not to either. Nobody is stopping you from going to and subscribing directly to news sources. I do and would encourage you to as well.
This idea that you need social media to get news is exactly what's wrong with the world today. Quite frankly the fact so many people are willing to tune into glorified talk show hosts pretending to be a source of news (Hannity, Carlson, Maddow) does a disservice to ACTUAL journalism.
They absolutely, 100% do not. Nobody is forcing you to go to google or twitter for news, I don't and would encourage you not to either. Nobody is stopping you from going to and subscribing directly to news sources. I do and would encourage you to as well.
This idea that you need social media to get news is exactly what's wrong with the world today. Quite frankly the fact so many people are willing to tune into glorified talk show hosts pretending to be a source of news (Hannity, Carlson, Maddow) does a disservice to ACTUAL journalism.
Because they aren’t doing those things?
They vandalized the whole country during a god damn pandemic (how many thousand lives lost?) and their leadership has strong ties to anti semitism. So yes they very much did, in addition to this autonomous zone bs by lunatic anarchists running under the flag. Pretty sure the body count was larger than 5 too.
What things? Burning down small businesses, attacking people and creating 'autonomous zones'?
Also hateful propaganda against Jews. For some strange reason, the official BLM platform denounces Jews and the indigenous peoples of Judea and Samaria.
See https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-did... for a balanced opinion on this.
While I'm sympathetic to some of the problems that BLM addresses--like the militarization of our Police Forces--I can't stick my neck out for them because of their hatred of Jews.
See https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-did... for a balanced opinion on this.
While I'm sympathetic to some of the problems that BLM addresses--like the militarization of our Police Forces--I can't stick my neck out for them because of their hatred of Jews.
That article is pretty old. Also you are misrepresenting it, as the platform point was about Israel and Palestine, not jews.
I have been unable to find a current platform, so it is unclear if that is actually still in there.
I have been unable to find a current platform, so it is unclear if that is actually still in there.
I disapprove of what the Marxist BLM say, but I will defend (probably not to my death admittedly) their right to say it. This is what a liberal democracy is.
They certainly do have a right to their beliefs. I would like them better if they had a narrow focus of U.S. Police overstepping their bounds, and the mistreatment of black people in the U.S. I agree completely that that's a problem.
But they've expanded their agenda beyond that, and muddled their goals.
But they've expanded their agenda beyond that, and muddled their goals.
I think the challenge is many people have campaigned for improved civil rights and police reforms under the 'BLM' banner without knowing who the core organization actually is.
In the UK you will be banned from football stadiums for performing a 'white power' clenched fist in the crowd, but the BLM Marxist black power clenched fist is performed before each match by kneeling professional players in memory of the death of George Floyd several thousand miles away and many months ago last year.
This confusion about racism and efforts to signal support are IMO very clumsy, comingling Marxist politics with laudable efforts to support unfair and heavy handed policing of some black people.
Similarly the comingling of a minority of 'far right' wingnuts amongst moderate conservatives, greatly amplified and distorted by the corporate media, has gravely misrepresented mainstream common sense concerns.
The various sensationalist media companies have a lot to answer for, they are fanning the flames of division, encouraging bigots and ignoring the mainstream masses
In the UK you will be banned from football stadiums for performing a 'white power' clenched fist in the crowd, but the BLM Marxist black power clenched fist is performed before each match by kneeling professional players in memory of the death of George Floyd several thousand miles away and many months ago last year.
This confusion about racism and efforts to signal support are IMO very clumsy, comingling Marxist politics with laudable efforts to support unfair and heavy handed policing of some black people.
Similarly the comingling of a minority of 'far right' wingnuts amongst moderate conservatives, greatly amplified and distorted by the corporate media, has gravely misrepresented mainstream common sense concerns.
The various sensationalist media companies have a lot to answer for, they are fanning the flames of division, encouraging bigots and ignoring the mainstream masses
Slippery slope does not mean "a thing I don't like" happened. Amazon had multiple, clear asks that Parler refused to adopt. They didn't even delete posts that Amazon had sent to them and informed them were problematic. That's literally the bare minimum.
Slippery Slope means just that, persistent and constant escalation of censorship which is exactly what is happening right now. Amazon jumped on the bandwagon behind Google Play and Apple store and Twitch and Facebook for internet SJW points and to not be left behind in the "I don't like what they say" Olympics.
I don't particularly agree with the messages of Parler or lean right at all, I am a staunch libertarian and believe that any and all opinions should be heard.
"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." - not sure who to attribute it to since I don't know, but it is almost certain this censorship wave was started by a political party for political goals. The end result is the same.
I don't particularly agree with the messages of Parler or lean right at all, I am a staunch libertarian and believe that any and all opinions should be heard.
"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." - not sure who to attribute it to since I don't know, but it is almost certain this censorship wave was started by a political party for political goals. The end result is the same.
> Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition
Well it's a good thing the government had nothing to do with this decision then!
Well it's a good thing the government had nothing to do with this decision then!
I think you underestimate the effect of politics in big tech. Lobbying happens for a reason and big tech does a very big portion of it.
Weird for a libertarian to believe that a private corporation should be forced to accommodate potential customers...
Missing the point here. My issue is silencing free speech/expression/liberty to do those things, not about any corporation in particular
> Slippery slope does not mean "a thing I don't like" happened
We are sliding down the slope at breakneck speed.
Slippery slope is not about a single thing happening. Instead, it is about one thing leading to another leading to another.
And I see a whole bunch of things leading to another and leading to another. Every 2 hours goes by, and another escalation happens.
The only question next is when will the escalation stop? Because clearly we have far far escalated past the point where we were a couple months ago, which was simply "Well, a couple nazis got banned on twitter".
We have zoomed ahead on the escalation to the point where a service with 10 million users is booted off of borderline critical internet infrastructure, with less than 12 hours of warning to do anything about it.
The slope, quite clearly, was pretty slippery it seems!
We are sliding down the slope at breakneck speed.
Slippery slope is not about a single thing happening. Instead, it is about one thing leading to another leading to another.
And I see a whole bunch of things leading to another and leading to another. Every 2 hours goes by, and another escalation happens.
The only question next is when will the escalation stop? Because clearly we have far far escalated past the point where we were a couple months ago, which was simply "Well, a couple nazis got banned on twitter".
We have zoomed ahead on the escalation to the point where a service with 10 million users is booted off of borderline critical internet infrastructure, with less than 12 hours of warning to do anything about it.
The slope, quite clearly, was pretty slippery it seems!
Less than 12 hours warning? Amazon had clearly previously communicated with them before today, even having a phone call with them in the last 24 hours. Clearly provided them with examples of problematic content, which Parler didn't even do the bare minimum and remove.
A bunch of companies deciding that unmoderated violence should not be given space on their platforms, or using their tools, is not a slippery slope.
A bunch of companies deciding that unmoderated violence should not be given space on their platforms, or using their tools, is not a slippery slope.
> is not a slippery slope.
One action is leading to another and leading to even more actions. That quite clearly falls under the principle of a slippery slope.
That is what people mean when they say "slippery slope". Imagine like an actual slope. That is slippery, because it has greese on it. And you slip down the slope.
Clearly, we are slipping down that slope very quickly.
First it was action X, which everyone agrees was done against someone who deserved it, then it was action Y which was an escalation, and then it was action Z that was another escalation.
Surely you should see how it is an escalation to go from "A couple nazis get banned on twitter", to where we are at now which it important computing infrastructure kicking major services off of the platform?
One action is leading to another and leading to even more actions. That quite clearly falls under the principle of a slippery slope.
That is what people mean when they say "slippery slope". Imagine like an actual slope. That is slippery, because it has greese on it. And you slip down the slope.
Clearly, we are slipping down that slope very quickly.
First it was action X, which everyone agrees was done against someone who deserved it, then it was action Y which was an escalation, and then it was action Z that was another escalation.
Surely you should see how it is an escalation to go from "A couple nazis get banned on twitter", to where we are at now which it important computing infrastructure kicking major services off of the platform?
By your logic, the 'start' of all of this was platforms banning Trump.
Do you actually think that "AWS terminates its relationship with a forum for violent extremists" is downslope of the President of the United States being barred from two of the largest social media platforms?
There's no slope here. There's multiple platforms drawing a line on acceptable speech, and taking actions to remove the worst offenders. Parler, in particular, thought that they could ignore Amazon's request for moderation and not even take action against specifically flagged posts that violated Amazon's AUP.
Do you actually think that "AWS terminates its relationship with a forum for violent extremists" is downslope of the President of the United States being barred from two of the largest social media platforms?
There's no slope here. There's multiple platforms drawing a line on acceptable speech, and taking actions to remove the worst offenders. Parler, in particular, thought that they could ignore Amazon's request for moderation and not even take action against specifically flagged posts that violated Amazon's AUP.
> the 'start' of all of this was platforms banning Trump.
People have been talking about deplatforming for a long while. Quite clearly, all of this stuff started a while ago, and has escalated quickly since then.
Slippery slope is less about a direct cause, and more of a direction. IE, it is talking about how things are escalating.
"AWS terminates its relationship" I would consider major internet infrastructure kicking off a service with millions of users an escalation from where we were a couple years ago, which was more along the lines of "a couple nazis are kicked off of twitter", yes.
Quite clearly it is a more significant action to take down a service with millions of users, than it is to ban a couple people on twitter.
> There's multiple platforms drawing a line on acceptable speech
And those platforms has escalated things over the last couple years. In the past, there was less people being kicked off of various parts of the internet/critical infrastructure, and now there are more people/services being kicked off of critical network infrastructure.
That is an escalation.
Even yesterday, I did not even consider that AWS would get involved in this somehow, and now look where we are.
What is going to happen tomorrow, I wonder? Or the next day and the next? I could not guess at this point.
Will ISP's start kicking people off? Possibly. Maybe even phone companies and common carriers will start doing it (even though if a common carrier did it, this would literally be illegal).
TBH, It really does not feel like that much of an escalation to say to that ISPs or common carrier might start doing this eventually. They don't feel significantly different than other critical infrastructure.
Take your guesses now about what is going to happen next, and see if you were right.
People have been talking about deplatforming for a long while. Quite clearly, all of this stuff started a while ago, and has escalated quickly since then.
Slippery slope is less about a direct cause, and more of a direction. IE, it is talking about how things are escalating.
"AWS terminates its relationship" I would consider major internet infrastructure kicking off a service with millions of users an escalation from where we were a couple years ago, which was more along the lines of "a couple nazis are kicked off of twitter", yes.
Quite clearly it is a more significant action to take down a service with millions of users, than it is to ban a couple people on twitter.
> There's multiple platforms drawing a line on acceptable speech
And those platforms has escalated things over the last couple years. In the past, there was less people being kicked off of various parts of the internet/critical infrastructure, and now there are more people/services being kicked off of critical network infrastructure.
That is an escalation.
Even yesterday, I did not even consider that AWS would get involved in this somehow, and now look where we are.
What is going to happen tomorrow, I wonder? Or the next day and the next? I could not guess at this point.
Will ISP's start kicking people off? Possibly. Maybe even phone companies and common carriers will start doing it (even though if a common carrier did it, this would literally be illegal).
TBH, It really does not feel like that much of an escalation to say to that ISPs or common carrier might start doing this eventually. They don't feel significantly different than other critical infrastructure.
Take your guesses now about what is going to happen next, and see if you were right.
"The only question next is when will the escalation stop?"
When Armed idiots stop attacking the capitol building and calling for the assassination of duly elected public officials in an attempt to overthrow a democratic government.
Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
When Armed idiots stop attacking the capitol building and calling for the assassination of duly elected public officials in an attempt to overthrow a democratic government.
Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
So then, your argument is that you would support literally any form of deplatforming or censorship, no matter how extreme?
Thats what my question was. To rephrase, my question was effectively "how extreme will these measures get?".
And it seems like your answer to that question is "You don't care at all how extreme they get, as long as they fulfil your objective. There is literally no possible extreme to which you would not support, on this topic of censorship/deplatforming".
Thats what my question was. To rephrase, my question was effectively "how extreme will these measures get?".
And it seems like your answer to that question is "You don't care at all how extreme they get, as long as they fulfil your objective. There is literally no possible extreme to which you would not support, on this topic of censorship/deplatforming".
Yes, when your side turns to violence it is time for you to be deplatformed. That includes governments that use violence against their citizens.
But you are saying that there is no possible extreme which you would not support? No matter what?
Government executing people in the streets, by the thousands for criticising it, justified? Soviet or china style re-education camps for citizens by the millions?
There is no possible extreme for which you would say "this censorship has gone too far!", And therefore you are completely unconcerned about any sort of escalation, no matter how extreme the crackdown gets?
Government executing people in the streets, by the thousands for criticising it, justified? Soviet or china style re-education camps for citizens by the millions?
There is no possible extreme for which you would say "this censorship has gone too far!", And therefore you are completely unconcerned about any sort of escalation, no matter how extreme the crackdown gets?
The platform is being actively used to plan attacks on our government... at a certain point this becomes a liability to any party that enabled it. As it should.
Giving people a safe space to network and plan attacks on US soil (or anywhere) is not "wrongthink", it is wrong.
It will already get banned from working for them.
Is there someone closer to the decision making process who could explain this sequence of events? From afar it looks as if all the tech companies coordinated this action, Apple delaying it by a day for optic reasons. I am not as troubled by the decision as some people, but the timing merits examination.
The tech companies did not coordinate the attempted violent overthrow of the US government; that was the far-right extremists doing the coordinating, not the tech companies. The tech companies are simply responding to their platforms being used to incite violent riots, murder, and the direct overthrow of our democratic government.
How long until their registrar or nameserver provider bounces them, too?.. how upstream will this go?
A few days ago the head of the largest flight attendant union called for all protesters to be banned from flights home: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/live-update/pro-trump-mob-breac...
I don't like where this is heading.
China has blocked millions of “discredited” travellers from buying plane or train tickets as part of the country’s controversial “social credit” system aimed at improving the behaviour of citizens. - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/china-bans-23m...
I don't like where this is heading.
China has blocked millions of “discredited” travellers from buying plane or train tickets as part of the country’s controversial “social credit” system aimed at improving the behaviour of citizens. - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/china-bans-23m...
Of all the bans, placing people who were at a violent, anti-government "protest" on the no-fly list actually seems like the most defensible one.
Except these lists have been historically difficult to contest or even figure out if you've been added to one.
>You should know that the government’s summary likely will not include all of its reasons for your placement on the list, and in some cases the government will choose not to provide any summary at all. The government also will not provide you any of the evidence it relied upon in deciding to place you on the list, and it may also withhold information in its possession that undercuts its basis for putting you on the list. Finally, the government does not provide a live hearing at which you could testify or give you an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against you.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-if-you-think-y...
>You should know that the government’s summary likely will not include all of its reasons for your placement on the list, and in some cases the government will choose not to provide any summary at all. The government also will not provide you any of the evidence it relied upon in deciding to place you on the list, and it may also withhold information in its possession that undercuts its basis for putting you on the list. Finally, the government does not provide a live hearing at which you could testify or give you an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against you.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-if-you-think-y...
Nearly all the people there were just walking around outside.
[deleted]
True, but the article talks about the violent protesters, not the non-violent ones.
I believe the request was made due to the protestors causing problems on the flights:
On an American Airlines flight from Dallas, a large contingent of Trump supporters got in an angry yelling match with other passengers after one of the president’s supporters projected “Trump 2020” on the cabin ceiling and walls.
On an American Airlines flight from Dallas, a large contingent of Trump supporters got in an angry yelling match with other passengers after one of the president’s supporters projected “Trump 2020” on the cabin ceiling and walls.
Granted, but how long until its used as precedent to put you on a list?
It's far too early to discuss "precedent" when there's literally no precedent for a lame-duck President inciting an insurrection against the legislature for certifying his loss in this country.
I'll get concerned the second time it happens. But these are extraordinary circumstances.
I'll get concerned the second time it happens. But these are extraordinary circumstances.
Is there honestly a struggle to tell the difference between a private company and a government? banning rioters from a plane doesn't seem unreasonable. they are not a protected class.
If the past 12 months has taught me anything it’s that one man’s protest is another man’s riot.
Also, false equivalencies are stubborn... A powerful political figure (the effing outgoing prez) whips up a crowd to invade Congress (not just any federal property) while a critical session is in progress, with armed nut jobs announcing they're here to kill lawmakers and the veep. I don't see anything coming nearly close in recent memory. Professional whataboutists are even out there claiming this was an antifa false flag...
But we are considering the goals and motivations of Team Parler/Stop The Steal, and it's clear that they aren't the victim in all of this.
What we are seeing here now in US is nothing new in China. Censorship, cancel culture, and now high tech terrarium. It's all following the same culture revolution path. You only need to replace landlord with who ever you want to beat here. In the end, the farmers who supported culture revolution are the final victims. Million and million people died. It seems like human can't never learned a lesson from history. And it's a shame now US is more like China, not China becomes like US if you compares now vs 20 years ago.
Thank you for speaking up.
> high tech terrarium
I'm not familiar with this term, maybe it comes from a phrase that is difficult to translate? I searched Google for "high tech terrarium" but the links were all about gardening and farming.
> high tech terrarium
I'm not familiar with this term, maybe it comes from a phrase that is difficult to translate? I searched Google for "high tech terrarium" but the links were all about gardening and farming.
A private business can choose to do business with anyone they choose or to not do business with you. It would be different if the government was making these sorts of decisions.
The number of exceptions to that supposed right are so numerous it’s almost not worth discussing.
Actually it's not that long a list:
U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information (added in 2008).
U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information (added in 2008).
Terrorists are usually added to no-fly lists, yeah?
When did you become the official judge of who is a terrorist? What happens when you're walking to the store one day, a protest passes by, and you no longer can fly ever again because you were identified on camera in a protest? "But I was just talking to the store!" Sorry, you cannot defend yourself against this because there no longer is any due process. You were on camera and that's the entire process. That part of your life that involves flying is now over regardless of your (non-existent) level of involvement in the protest.
You really should be careful what you wish for because at this rate, you're probably going to get it and much more of it than you ever imagined.
You really should be careful what you wish for because at this rate, you're probably going to get it and much more of it than you ever imagined.
Edit: the no-fly list as a DHS entity, which I just learned about, is absolute horseshit. I assumed no-fly lists were per airline and I stand corrected.
Terrorism is an over-applied label that is used to stoke FUD and expand executive power; yep I agree with that and I don’t use the term lightly.
Joining an organized movement to overturn a legal democratic election, breaking into the capitol, armed, and bludgeoning an officer to death is terrorism and a private company has every right to deny these people the privilege of flying on their airlines.
Terrorism is an over-applied label that is used to stoke FUD and expand executive power; yep I agree with that and I don’t use the term lightly.
Joining an organized movement to overturn a legal democratic election, breaking into the capitol, armed, and bludgeoning an officer to death is terrorism and a private company has every right to deny these people the privilege of flying on their airlines.
The no-fly list is an important element of suppressing terrorism, foreign and domestic. It exists to prevent precisely this sort of situation - very few of these people were from within driving distance of Washington (or each other).
Whether it could do with more oversight is an independent question, with no shortage of people to ask it.
Whether it could do with more oversight is an independent question, with no shortage of people to ask it.
The most extreme elements of the Trump movement basically proved themselves to be not much different than Al Qaeda on Wednesday. Given that, it seems perfectly appropriate to not allow them onto airplanes.
Is that some kind of sick joke?
Al Qaeda burns people to death in metal cages.
The Trump riot was basically people taking stupid selfies. They were very violent to the building. But I've not seen any violence toward other people.
Al Qaeda burns people to death in metal cages.
The Trump riot was basically people taking stupid selfies. They were very violent to the building. But I've not seen any violence toward other people.
> But I've not seen any violence toward other people.
Goodness, then you haven't been looking very hard. Perhaps you haven't seen this? https://youtu.be/cJOgGsC0G9U?t=1224
The NYTimes also ran this story today: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/pelosi-threat-Clevelan...
> Is that some kind of sick joke? Al Qaeda burns people to death in metal cages.
Hate groups in the US have a long history of committing heinous murders and lynchings. Here's one such example which seems on par with your description of burnings in metal cages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_of_Jesse_Washington
I don't doubt that there are members of hate groups in the US today that would commit such acts and that many of them are among Trump's most avid supporters; probably even among those that broke into the Capitol Wednesday. Let's please not pretend like that kind of violence isn't possible in Trump's America.
Let's also not forget Trump's own personal legacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump#1927_arrest
Goodness, then you haven't been looking very hard. Perhaps you haven't seen this? https://youtu.be/cJOgGsC0G9U?t=1224
The NYTimes also ran this story today: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/pelosi-threat-Clevelan...
> Is that some kind of sick joke? Al Qaeda burns people to death in metal cages.
Hate groups in the US have a long history of committing heinous murders and lynchings. Here's one such example which seems on par with your description of burnings in metal cages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_of_Jesse_Washington
I don't doubt that there are members of hate groups in the US today that would commit such acts and that many of them are among Trump's most avid supporters; probably even among those that broke into the Capitol Wednesday. Let's please not pretend like that kind of violence isn't possible in Trump's America.
Let's also not forget Trump's own personal legacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump#1927_arrest
Look, what they did at the capitol was abhorrent.
> Perhaps you haven't seen this?
You have got to be kidding me - some people shoving riot police is comparable to burning people alive in metal cages? The people in the front are not even hitting the police, they are just pushing.
> Hate groups in the US
Why are we switching to other groups suddenly?
> I don't doubt
So basically you are making up imaginary things, then assuming people will do them?
> Trump's own personal legacy
A story about his father is somehow relevant?
Look, I will say it again, what they did at the capitol was abhorrent. But your comparison with Al Qaeda is indescribably worse. I'm utterly stunned to be having this conversation with you - it's like I'm living in some kind of alternate reality world.
Aee you serious? Do you have even the remotest idea just how disgusting your comparison is?
> Perhaps you haven't seen this?
You have got to be kidding me - some people shoving riot police is comparable to burning people alive in metal cages? The people in the front are not even hitting the police, they are just pushing.
> Hate groups in the US
Why are we switching to other groups suddenly?
> I don't doubt
So basically you are making up imaginary things, then assuming people will do them?
> Trump's own personal legacy
A story about his father is somehow relevant?
Look, I will say it again, what they did at the capitol was abhorrent. But your comparison with Al Qaeda is indescribably worse. I'm utterly stunned to be having this conversation with you - it's like I'm living in some kind of alternate reality world.
Aee you serious? Do you have even the remotest idea just how disgusting your comparison is?
Well, based on the tone of this reply I really doubt there's much more to be gained by continuing this thread. But I'll leave you with a few parting thoughts anyway...
> You have got to be kidding me - some people shoving riot police is comparable to burning people alive in metal cages?
I didn't make that comparison and I don't think most people would have interpreted my remarks as having done that. You're putting words in my mouth. You made this statement in your previous post:
"The Trump riot was basically people taking stupid selfies. They were very violent to the building. But I've not seen any violence toward other people."
The linked video of rioters shoving police was intended to show you that it was terribly wrong and somewhat careless to think that what happened was the same as "taking stupid selfies."
> Why are we switching to other groups suddenly?
My point was that it's reasonable to say that these are not "other groups." It's already been shown I think pretty widely by many reputable news organizations that some of Trump's most ardent supporters are members of hard core white supremacist groups. The link to the article about Jesse Washington's lynching was intended to show you that it's also reasonable to think that such groups are capable of violence that is on the same level as burning people in metal cages. That kind of violence exists in the US's own history of hate motivated crimes. The rioters that broke into capitol had erected a make shift gallows outside of the building. They were also heard chanting and saying things like "Hang Mike Pence" and "Heads on a Pike." Just let that sink in for a bit. What do you think would have happened if, say, they had run across AOC in the hallways given that she's been consistently demonized for the past two years? They were carrying signs saying "Nancy Pelosi is Satan." What would have happened if they had found her? Why is anyone still giving these people the benefit of the doubt?
> A story about his father is somehow relevant?
Yes, because it appears that Trump's father may have been a member of the KKK.
> Look, I will say it again, what they did at the capitol was abhorrent. But your comparison with Al Qaeda is indescribably worse.
Worse than what? The attack on the capitol? If that's what you meant, that's not a very serious comment.
> I'm utterly stunned to be having this conversation with you - it's like I'm living in some kind of alternate reality world. Aee you serious? Do you have even the remotest idea just how disgusting your comparison is?
Yes, I'm quite serious. Don't think that throwing insults at me is going to change my mind.
With all that being said, I think this conversation has outgrown its usefulness and I won't be making any further replies.
> You have got to be kidding me - some people shoving riot police is comparable to burning people alive in metal cages?
I didn't make that comparison and I don't think most people would have interpreted my remarks as having done that. You're putting words in my mouth. You made this statement in your previous post:
"The Trump riot was basically people taking stupid selfies. They were very violent to the building. But I've not seen any violence toward other people."
The linked video of rioters shoving police was intended to show you that it was terribly wrong and somewhat careless to think that what happened was the same as "taking stupid selfies."
> Why are we switching to other groups suddenly?
My point was that it's reasonable to say that these are not "other groups." It's already been shown I think pretty widely by many reputable news organizations that some of Trump's most ardent supporters are members of hard core white supremacist groups. The link to the article about Jesse Washington's lynching was intended to show you that it's also reasonable to think that such groups are capable of violence that is on the same level as burning people in metal cages. That kind of violence exists in the US's own history of hate motivated crimes. The rioters that broke into capitol had erected a make shift gallows outside of the building. They were also heard chanting and saying things like "Hang Mike Pence" and "Heads on a Pike." Just let that sink in for a bit. What do you think would have happened if, say, they had run across AOC in the hallways given that she's been consistently demonized for the past two years? They were carrying signs saying "Nancy Pelosi is Satan." What would have happened if they had found her? Why is anyone still giving these people the benefit of the doubt?
> A story about his father is somehow relevant?
Yes, because it appears that Trump's father may have been a member of the KKK.
> Look, I will say it again, what they did at the capitol was abhorrent. But your comparison with Al Qaeda is indescribably worse.
Worse than what? The attack on the capitol? If that's what you meant, that's not a very serious comment.
> I'm utterly stunned to be having this conversation with you - it's like I'm living in some kind of alternate reality world. Aee you serious? Do you have even the remotest idea just how disgusting your comparison is?
Yes, I'm quite serious. Don't think that throwing insults at me is going to change my mind.
With all that being said, I think this conversation has outgrown its usefulness and I won't be making any further replies.
Daily Stormer tested the limits of speech using Domain Name registrations and the answer was every organization beneath ICANN.
This is why telecommunications companies sign decades long leases at colo facilities. Because everyone who's worked at 111 eighth avenue knows what happens when big tech wants you out. There's no lease for cloud infrastructure and I don't know what collective psychosis made operations folks think that's a good idea. Was Amazon even obliged to give them 24-hours on the eviction notice? That sounds like just enough time for a small company to make sure they have an offline copy of the database. What was stopping Amazon from pushing a button that instantly deleted their ec2 virtual machines and then recalled their s3 glacier offsite tape backups for shredding too. This is a great reminder that even if you do all the "right things" in the cloud, it can all be taken away in a day because Ro Khanna tweeted at your provider. Western Union was destroyed for far less meddling and scheming than this and AT&T rose to power on the explicit promise to not do basically everything the tech giants have done these past two days, so maybe we'll see some disruption in the future.
> This is why telecommunications companies sign decades long leases at colo facilities.
Agree, but the messaging so far is well into "you violated our acceptable use policy which would nullify our lease if we had one" territory. Even telecom leases have carve-outs for "abuse", which is always defined in sufficiently vague terms.
Agree, but the messaging so far is well into "you violated our acceptable use policy which would nullify our lease if we had one" territory. Even telecom leases have carve-outs for "abuse", which is always defined in sufficiently vague terms.
Internet exchanges don't have acceptable use policies. Check out the Telehouse website and try to find their AUP page. If they did have one, it'd basically just say you can't use the peering point for illegal activity. Companies like Amazon are customers of exchanges and that's how they get to enjoy things like section 230 protections. But it's clearly "common carrier for me, not for thee" if you read their own policies, since the AWS AUP says "you're not allowed to host offensive content". Moral of the story is if you want your online business to be governed by law rather than aups, just buy a PC and drop it by an internet exchange and set up a contract with cogent or someone. Then you can't be destroyed because you displeased a politician on Twitter.
> Internet exchanges don't have acceptable use policies.
The traffic through an IX (like SIX) is governed by a rat's nest of bilateral peering agreements, and those bilateral agreements have AUPs.
Peering exchanges are nice, but are effectively a corner case optimization on the modern internet. You still need a default route from somebody, and the major carriers all refuse to sell default routes through peering exchanges (for understandable reasons).
Everybody who will sell you a link with a default route will insist on something vaguely similar to an AUP.
The traffic through an IX (like SIX) is governed by a rat's nest of bilateral peering agreements, and those bilateral agreements have AUPs.
Peering exchanges are nice, but are effectively a corner case optimization on the modern internet. You still need a default route from somebody, and the major carriers all refuse to sell default routes through peering exchanges (for understandable reasons).
Everybody who will sell you a link with a default route will insist on something vaguely similar to an AUP.
Autonomous systems don't depend on a default route. It's not difficult or expensive to set up a BGP router. The labels attached to these contracts and agreements are really beside the point. If you want to play the Internet game then it's worthwhile to play it as an equal. If you host your business in the cloud then Amazon has shown us today that they will delete you like a bad YouTube comment the moment people weep and wail on Twitter.
If you're going to do something like parler, your own tin, in your own building (with a contract that doesn't refer to any acceptable use), your own network range(s), your own AS, and fibres conncecting to multiple POPs.
Fibres and building contracts typically don't allow the service provider to cancel except for very specific cases (not paying the rent for example), and are long enough that alternatives can be sought ahead of schedule if the company no longer wants to deal with you.
Fibres and building contracts typically don't allow the service provider to cancel except for very specific cases (not paying the rent for example), and are long enough that alternatives can be sought ahead of schedule if the company no longer wants to deal with you.
From a couple of an hours ago, over 150 points, over 240 comments:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25708142
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25708142
Huh. It's already off the front page, or I wouldn't have submitted this.
Additionally, another post of the same link around the same time with 670+ comments:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25707959
Interesting. How a post with 150 points in 2 hours could be off the front page?
From the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
> How are stories ranked?
> The basic algorithm divides points by a power of the time since a story was submitted. Comments in threads are ranked the same way.
> Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, software which demotes overheated discussions, account or site weighting, and moderator action.
> How are stories ranked?
> The basic algorithm divides points by a power of the time since a story was submitted. Comments in threads are ranked the same way.
> Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, software which demotes overheated discussions, account or site weighting, and moderator action.
Before this gets too far I’d just like to point out that anyone arguing this is an issue of free speech or “first they came for x, who’s next” is not arguing in good faith..
I’ve noticed a pattern of moving the goal post. The problem here is an insurrection and the loss of 5 American lives. Arguing there is not advantageous, easy, or particularly strong so the goal post moves to free speech leaving what happened at the capitol off the table.
I really enjoy the series on YouTube “the alt right playbook”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM&list=PLJA_jUddXv... This one is applicable here
I’ve noticed a pattern of moving the goal post. The problem here is an insurrection and the loss of 5 American lives. Arguing there is not advantageous, easy, or particularly strong so the goal post moves to free speech leaving what happened at the capitol off the table.
I really enjoy the series on YouTube “the alt right playbook”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM&list=PLJA_jUddXv... This one is applicable here
Well, banning all bad people for the sake of all good is how many revolutions started, and resulted in much more deaths and other horrors.
If you want to live in a healthy state, you don't ban people who you disagree with. You integrate them into the system.
If you want to live in a healthy state, you don't ban people who you disagree with. You integrate them into the system.
How do you integrate people who are hostile to the system and would rather see it destroyed than become part of it?
> would rather see it destroyed than become part of it?
Very very few people want to have the system destroyed. Especially if you don't push people out of the system, like banning these people in social networks.
Trump voters did not want the system destroyed. They believe the election was rigged.
There is enough evidence of election fraud or election abnormalities. Though I believe not enough to change the election outcome.
It should the job of democrats (and everybody) to investigate, convince, and speak transparently about all the issues, in particular, prosecute people responsible for problems, rather than repeating "orange man bad", and radicalise Trump supporters.
Very very few people want to have the system destroyed. Especially if you don't push people out of the system, like banning these people in social networks.
Trump voters did not want the system destroyed. They believe the election was rigged.
There is enough evidence of election fraud or election abnormalities. Though I believe not enough to change the election outcome.
It should the job of democrats (and everybody) to investigate, convince, and speak transparently about all the issues, in particular, prosecute people responsible for problems, rather than repeating "orange man bad", and radicalise Trump supporters.
This is a rant, so stop reading now if you don't want to be offended.
I'm tired of this election fraud nonsense. 243 years of peaceful transitions ended the other day, and some of us take that personally. Here's the entire issue with this liberal-conservative dichotomy. No matter which one of you nuggetheads won, you would say the election was stolen by the other. Do you people seriously expect the rest of us to sit idly by and watch while you attempt to interrupt the implementation of the Constitutional order because you're butthurt? Many of us took oathes to uphold that Constitution with our lives if necessary. Not those pretend oathes you weekend warriors take before you go out to your range and practice shooting unarmed black kids or whatever. I'm talking about oathes that we fully intend to go to the grave with. You want to interrupt the Constitutional order at the Captiol? Fine. But next time, I'm telling you right now, you'd better be packing something a lot more powerful than some cockamamie story about election fraud.
That goes for the liberals too when your turn comes to relinquish power.
I can't believe that there are people out there who still can't see that this crosses a line. I'm done coddling these political people.
I'm tired of this election fraud nonsense. 243 years of peaceful transitions ended the other day, and some of us take that personally. Here's the entire issue with this liberal-conservative dichotomy. No matter which one of you nuggetheads won, you would say the election was stolen by the other. Do you people seriously expect the rest of us to sit idly by and watch while you attempt to interrupt the implementation of the Constitutional order because you're butthurt? Many of us took oathes to uphold that Constitution with our lives if necessary. Not those pretend oathes you weekend warriors take before you go out to your range and practice shooting unarmed black kids or whatever. I'm talking about oathes that we fully intend to go to the grave with. You want to interrupt the Constitutional order at the Captiol? Fine. But next time, I'm telling you right now, you'd better be packing something a lot more powerful than some cockamamie story about election fraud.
That goes for the liberals too when your turn comes to relinquish power.
I can't believe that there are people out there who still can't see that this crosses a line. I'm done coddling these political people.
Hillary conceded less than a day after polls closed. A few House members filed complaints during the 2016 electoral count with no Senate support and Biden got the whole counting process over in about a half hour.
I understand the point you’re making, but the both-sides arguments undermine the discussion of a very clear problem we need to deal with as a country: millions of conservatives are comfortable with insurrection when they don’t get their way. They have no interest in democracy. It is paramount we make it clear this is not acceptable and ensure the future of our governmental norms are not disrupted further.
I understand the point you’re making, but the both-sides arguments undermine the discussion of a very clear problem we need to deal with as a country: millions of conservatives are comfortable with insurrection when they don’t get their way. They have no interest in democracy. It is paramount we make it clear this is not acceptable and ensure the future of our governmental norms are not disrupted further.
I agree the numbers are (relatively) few, but those very few people are exactly the people we're discussing. How do you integrate them?
We're not talking about Trump voters as a whole. They're welcome to believe they were robbed, the same way many Democrats did in 2000 (hell, in 2016 too). I'm confident the vast majority of them will find a way to live with it.
Trump didn't lose the vote because of fraud, he lost because higher voter participation via mail-in benefitted Biden.
Democrats aren't radicalizing Trump supporters and it's bizarre to claim they are.
We're not talking about Trump voters as a whole. They're welcome to believe they were robbed, the same way many Democrats did in 2000 (hell, in 2016 too). I'm confident the vast majority of them will find a way to live with it.
Trump didn't lose the vote because of fraud, he lost because higher voter participation via mail-in benefitted Biden.
Democrats aren't radicalizing Trump supporters and it's bizarre to claim they are.
You just performed the exact rhetorical trick the OP described. You tried to reduce this to “disagreement.” These actions aren’t about disagreement. They’re about violence and sedition.
[deleted]
Terrible precedent.
Even the argument that "private companies don't have to respect free speech", though one that seems disingenuous as most people making it weren't saying so with cases like Masterpiece Cake Shop v CCRC, holds little water when there is no public square alternative.
Because of the possibility of people saying things FAANG don't approve of, they are entirely deplatforming a platform.
How can they argue that they're anything but publishers, if they boot websites for simply having the potential to allow speech they disapprove of?
Even the argument that "private companies don't have to respect free speech", though one that seems disingenuous as most people making it weren't saying so with cases like Masterpiece Cake Shop v CCRC, holds little water when there is no public square alternative.
Because of the possibility of people saying things FAANG don't approve of, they are entirely deplatforming a platform.
How can they argue that they're anything but publishers, if they boot websites for simply having the potential to allow speech they disapprove of?
The Economist has published an article [1] that discusses what it sees as increasing scrutiny of social media networks. In one paragraph, it says:
... it is hard to avoid the sense that the social-media firms have reached a point of no return. Disquiet about the power and reach of social media is not confined to political partisans. Britain, Australia, Singapore, Brazil and the EU have passed, or are mooting, new rules designed to regulate social media. The banning of the world’s most powerful politician will raise the temperature even further. The firms’ in-house enforcement policies—which are spotty and inconsistently applied—will come under even more intense scrutiny.
I found the article to be well-reasoned and thoughtful, so am posting it here because I think that it might be of interest to other HN users.
[1] https://www.economist.com/international/2021/01/10/the-expul...
... it is hard to avoid the sense that the social-media firms have reached a point of no return. Disquiet about the power and reach of social media is not confined to political partisans. Britain, Australia, Singapore, Brazil and the EU have passed, or are mooting, new rules designed to regulate social media. The banning of the world’s most powerful politician will raise the temperature even further. The firms’ in-house enforcement policies—which are spotty and inconsistently applied—will come under even more intense scrutiny.
I found the article to be well-reasoned and thoughtful, so am posting it here because I think that it might be of interest to other HN users.
[1] https://www.economist.com/international/2021/01/10/the-expul...
Just one thing to note about section 230. Amazon is protected from civil liability for content on Parler, but it is not protected from criminal liability. In practice the feds don’t go after isos from hosting criminal content (frauds for instance) with the exception of child pornography, but there is a lot of very illegal stuff on parler right now (calls to kill the Vice President, conspiracy to sedition, etc). It’s not surprising parler is being banned
I am in favor of these matters being handled and adjudicated via the courts, not by private entities with no due process, arbitrary process and limited oversight.
For all we know there was a limited group of users of that service that caused this action, however we don’t know and likely will never know the facts in this matter.
For all we know there was a limited group of users of that service that caused this action, however we don’t know and likely will never know the facts in this matter.
> I am in favor of these matters being handled and adjudicated via the courts, not by private entities with no due process, arbitrary process and limited oversight.
So if Amazon wants to discontinue a business relationship they would need to sue their customer? What would they sue them for? I don't think it's a crime to break terms of service.
So if Amazon wants to discontinue a business relationship they would need to sue their customer? What would they sue them for? I don't think it's a crime to break terms of service.
Amazon didn’t break terms of service, but Parler did by not moderating their platform.
Amazon, Google, and Apple merely terminated their service because Parler violated TOS. It is perfectly reasonable.
Amazon, Google, and Apple merely terminated their service because Parler violated TOS. It is perfectly reasonable.
I highly suspect that a dispute would end up in arbitration rather than courts, too. It's not like AWS failed to think ahead about getting sued.
I would imagine Amazon is likely to be sued if they continue allowing Parler to remain on their cloud without dramatically improving moderation of violent and illegal content. Sure Amazon could probably fight such a suit and win, but why would they waste that money and take that risk? Plus, who really want to be seen as fighting for Parler right now?
Maybe Amazons motives are not really based on their obligation to protect the company from unnecessary liability. Maybe that is just a handy excuse for getting rid of a customer that is hurting their reputation. It is difficult to say from the outside. But even then how do we decide which companies are allowed cease business with customers damage their reputation. What if a smaller provider has an existentially large customer who threatens to leave if they don't stop doing business with another unsavory customer. Will have a rule that is so strict they just have to go out of business? Or will we not allow the large customer to leave? It is god damned mine field.
This is all such a beautiful example of the immense complexity of the real world. People must make hard decisions where there are no clearly right answers. Maybe they try to do the most ethical thing, maybe they look out for their company, or maybe they serve their own selfish interest. Regardless, there is lots of potential for unintended consequences. For one, others will then frame those actions and the consequences in a narrative to support their own business or political goals.
Maybe Amazons motives are not really based on their obligation to protect the company from unnecessary liability. Maybe that is just a handy excuse for getting rid of a customer that is hurting their reputation. It is difficult to say from the outside. But even then how do we decide which companies are allowed cease business with customers damage their reputation. What if a smaller provider has an existentially large customer who threatens to leave if they don't stop doing business with another unsavory customer. Will have a rule that is so strict they just have to go out of business? Or will we not allow the large customer to leave? It is god damned mine field.
This is all such a beautiful example of the immense complexity of the real world. People must make hard decisions where there are no clearly right answers. Maybe they try to do the most ethical thing, maybe they look out for their company, or maybe they serve their own selfish interest. Regardless, there is lots of potential for unintended consequences. For one, others will then frame those actions and the consequences in a narrative to support their own business or political goals.
Courts can only adjudicate based on the law. There's little to adjudicate in these matters because the law protects platforms for content posted.
The real shortcoming in these matters is a total lack of legislation that reflects the world today on the Internet. Section 230 and the rest of the CDA were passed in 1996. The world looked a lot different back then.
Until legislatures act, private companies self-policing at their own discretion is the best we get.
> For all we know there was a limited group of users of that service that caused this action, however we don’t know and likely will never know the facts in this matter.
To my knowledge Parler was in part blocked due to a total lack of a moderation policy. It was the policy of the app, not the mere action of a minority of users.
The real shortcoming in these matters is a total lack of legislation that reflects the world today on the Internet. Section 230 and the rest of the CDA were passed in 1996. The world looked a lot different back then.
Until legislatures act, private companies self-policing at their own discretion is the best we get.
> For all we know there was a limited group of users of that service that caused this action, however we don’t know and likely will never know the facts in this matter.
To my knowledge Parler was in part blocked due to a total lack of a moderation policy. It was the policy of the app, not the mere action of a minority of users.
The only way to bring a lawsuit is for an action to occur that triggers the suit. Otherwise, there is no breach of contract to sue over. If Parler believes they have a case against Amazon, they are able to file a lawsuit.
That said, Parler almost certainly has no case since private companies may do business with whomever they please and any terms in place almost certainly contain an at-will termination clause. Parler will need to find a new host and AWS will forfeit any future revenue from Parler. That’s an even exchange.
That said, Parler almost certainly has no case since private companies may do business with whomever they please and any terms in place almost certainly contain an at-will termination clause. Parler will need to find a new host and AWS will forfeit any future revenue from Parler. That’s an even exchange.
A protests of 1000s(tens?) of people had some unknown (be honest) number of violent actors that resulted in the death of two people. We have no means of verifying that those who committed violence did so at the behest of bad actors on any given App. We can speculate or let the media speculate for us. Speculation nonetheless.
One would think that a community so dependent on data would require it.
Would you have felt more safe at that protest or walking through a rough area of Chicago on any given day last week? [0]
Is this really worth the slippery slope we are now walking toward? I don't know. At least not yet.
[0] https://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/1_...
One would think that a community so dependent on data would require it.
Would you have felt more safe at that protest or walking through a rough area of Chicago on any given day last week? [0]
Is this really worth the slippery slope we are now walking toward? I don't know. At least not yet.
[0] https://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/1_...
The internet is very big. Just because parler won't be hosts on AWS doesn't mean they won't find a host. They'll find a hosting company run by people as awful as them, just like the daily stormer did.
It sounds like you are describing George Floyd protests too - Twitter, etc was used to coordinate. Seems like a big double standard here.
I will assume you meant to reply to another comment because there is no double standard here. George Floyd protest were free speech and necessary.
Not you, I meant double standard for the media's portrayal of those protests vs recent. Seem to go out of their way to call those mostly peaceful with a few bad actors, but not the other way around.
To people frustrated by this move, I’m genuinely curious if you’d be equally frustrated if this was the booting off Amazon of a forum used in part (but not exclusively) to recruit ISIS members.
Edit: I’d also love to hear if you were equally frustrated when ISIS and their recruitment efforts were banned from Twitter.
Edit: I’d also love to hear if you were equally frustrated when ISIS and their recruitment efforts were banned from Twitter.
As someone who is frustrated by this, and who years ago also joined now-deleted FB groups where ISIS advocates shared propaganda, yes I am equally frustrated. I believe the value of preserving and maintaining open discussions on the internet outweighs the silencing of them for political aims. In the case of Parler, they do actually moderate some content, and I believe it is conceivable they would adopt a policy to ban violence, but it's too little to late now.
> I’d also love to hear if you...
Judging by the downvotes, it would seem the parent comment's request was not asked in good faith. That's disappointing, because I really meant what I said. Obviously extremist groups are problematic, but it doesn't serve us well to be ignorant of their views. One huge example of this is the Trump supporters who had no idea that extremist elements were planning an armed insurrection - by censoring that, all they have to go on is the word of Twitter, which is an organization they already distrust. I have not seen it with my own eyes, but if you look at the screenshots of "hang Mike Pence" discussion happening on Parler, there are less than a dozen people involved in the conversation. That is a very small number that doesn't do much to show that extremists on the platform are a threat justifying the censoring of the service. Again, all they have to go on is the analysis of organizations who they already distrust, who have said Trump's simple statement that he will not be at the inauguration is somehow incitement. Most Trump supporters do not buy that logic, but they might if whatever extremist conversations occurring openly were used as proof to back it up.
Judging by the downvotes, it would seem the parent comment's request was not asked in good faith. That's disappointing, because I really meant what I said. Obviously extremist groups are problematic, but it doesn't serve us well to be ignorant of their views. One huge example of this is the Trump supporters who had no idea that extremist elements were planning an armed insurrection - by censoring that, all they have to go on is the word of Twitter, which is an organization they already distrust. I have not seen it with my own eyes, but if you look at the screenshots of "hang Mike Pence" discussion happening on Parler, there are less than a dozen people involved in the conversation. That is a very small number that doesn't do much to show that extremists on the platform are a threat justifying the censoring of the service. Again, all they have to go on is the analysis of organizations who they already distrust, who have said Trump's simple statement that he will not be at the inauguration is somehow incitement. Most Trump supporters do not buy that logic, but they might if whatever extremist conversations occurring openly were used as proof to back it up.
Political affiliation needs to become a protected class.
If your business is open to the public, you can’t deny people service for being gay or black (which is a great thing) - you also shouldn’t be able to deny them service based on their politics.
If your business is open to the public, you can’t deny people service for being gay or black (which is a great thing) - you also shouldn’t be able to deny them service based on their politics.
Why should white supremacy and neo nazism be a protected class in the same vein as ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation?
Corporations with the ability to freely serve, or fire, people for wrongthink has the inevitable outcome of people only parroting what their employer tells them to. Support our cause or be expelled. It's happening slowly, but expect it to ramp up in coming years. Is that a world you want to live in? All in the name of those damn nazis again.
Because the definition of nazi or white supremacist widens every day. What is acceptable today is racist next week.
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political battle, or at least getting uncomfortably close to it. That's not allowed here—it destroys the curious conversation that this site is supposed to exist for. When accounts cross that line (see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... for more explanation), that's when we start banning them, regardless of which politics or ideology they're banning for.
I'm not going to ban you right now because as of a few months ago (say, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23644508 and further back) your account mostly wasn't abusing HN this badly though you were still doing it (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23609087 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23495773). Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and go back to using the site for its intended purpose, and please don't post any more flamebait.
I'm not going to ban you right now because as of a few months ago (say, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23644508 and further back) your account mostly wasn't abusing HN this badly though you were still doing it (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23609087 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23495773). Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and go back to using the site for its intended purpose, and please don't post any more flamebait.
Except the Apple comment I don't think I've been making political comments in threads where the topic wasn't political to start with.
And this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23495773 The OP literally asks for an unpopular opinion... You can't fault me for answering?
But you are right about me being too focused on political comments lately. I wasn't aware I was doing that.
Thanks for your work on HN.
And this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23495773 The OP literally asks for an unpopular opinion... You can't fault me for answering?
But you are right about me being too focused on political comments lately. I wasn't aware I was doing that.
Thanks for your work on HN.
This seems very counter to the whole Net Neutrality movement. If my ISP starts blocking Tor, or charging extra to get to YouTube.
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Which you know by describing things that do somewhat resemble issues of NN, but which have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The only actual alternative is if people start investing in open cellular platforms.
I fully support the right of companies to sell locked down hardware, we shouldn't be trying to over-regulate here. The right response to this situation is to compete with it using open hardware, which respects its users. It's insane to me that we have all tolerated companies dictating what kind of software we run on the hardware we buy from them.
It's time to fight back. Open Mobile Hardware now!
I fully support the right of companies to sell locked down hardware, we shouldn't be trying to over-regulate here. The right response to this situation is to compete with it using open hardware, which respects its users. It's insane to me that we have all tolerated companies dictating what kind of software we run on the hardware we buy from them.
It's time to fight back. Open Mobile Hardware now!
Already exists https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/
Authorized by zero carriers in the USA.
Sorry man, I got burned when Verizon nuked all the EC25 devices. That's not a gamble I want to take with an $800 phone. I support their mission but without carrier authorization you're one whim away from having an expensive brick in your pocket. It sucks but that's the cell phone market.
Note how purism goes to extreme lengths to dodge the question of "which networks will your phone work on". They have these elaborate frequency tables but never name any networks, then at the bottom the fine print admitting that they have no carrier authorizations.
Sorry man, I got burned when Verizon nuked all the EC25 devices. That's not a gamble I want to take with an $800 phone. I support their mission but without carrier authorization you're one whim away from having an expensive brick in your pocket. It sucks but that's the cell phone market.
Note how purism goes to extreme lengths to dodge the question of "which networks will your phone work on". They have these elaborate frequency tables but never name any networks, then at the bottom the fine print admitting that they have no carrier authorizations.
I always think about publishing in these circumstances.
In the UK you can't just write anything you want and publish it in a book. I can't just make something up about someone in a book. There are also laws I can't break about inciting violence. Etctera.
I don't see this as much about the individual's right to free speech as about the platform's ability to monetise published content, which is what Twitter and Facebook are doing. When you view things through this prism, I think it's simpler.
Either the platforms conform to the law as a book publisher must, which makes it hard for a real-time _broadcast_ platform to exist, or the platform does not exist at all.
This exposes the social media platforms as another instance of the same pattern as Uber or Airbnb, in that they are publishing platforms that simply ignore the law.
Before you shoot me down here: I agree that being able to share with your friends is not the same as publishing. It's the features that turn the medium from sharing with friends into a broadcast medium that have made the social media companies (reckless) publishers.
I'd like to see an end to the broadcast features, as companies are unlikely to change.
In the UK you can't just write anything you want and publish it in a book. I can't just make something up about someone in a book. There are also laws I can't break about inciting violence. Etctera.
I don't see this as much about the individual's right to free speech as about the platform's ability to monetise published content, which is what Twitter and Facebook are doing. When you view things through this prism, I think it's simpler.
Either the platforms conform to the law as a book publisher must, which makes it hard for a real-time _broadcast_ platform to exist, or the platform does not exist at all.
This exposes the social media platforms as another instance of the same pattern as Uber or Airbnb, in that they are publishing platforms that simply ignore the law.
Before you shoot me down here: I agree that being able to share with your friends is not the same as publishing. It's the features that turn the medium from sharing with friends into a broadcast medium that have made the social media companies (reckless) publishers.
I'd like to see an end to the broadcast features, as companies are unlikely to change.
I’m noticing that a lot of people in the discussions on this and related topics are spilling ink on themes of free speech and civil rights, while utterly failing to even mention, let alone address, the fact that seditious attacks on our government were, and are still being, openly plotted and instigated on these platforms.
I don’t think any argument that fails to deal with this can be taken seriously.
I don’t think any argument that fails to deal with this can be taken seriously.
To all the HN users drawing a false equivalency between Parler and Twitter checkout /r/parlerwatch . There is a significant difference between the average severity, duration, and support, for posts that suggest, encourage, and especially plan, domestic terrorism.
This is the power of network effects. Being kicked of one service is survivable. Getting kicked off all the major ones is a real existential threat to any company. Network effects aren't just users talking to other users, but platforms with overlapping terms of service clauses and what they allow and don't allow. Find yourself in the Venn diagram of what most of them won't allow and your system becomes functionally unworkable in today's society.
The flip side of this is that if, years from now there's a "free speech" payment processor, cloud host, social network and all the rest, de-platforming for a different subculture than the current mainstream service providers allow becomes harder. We talk about the balkanization of the internet, but there's a possible future where there is a balkanization across cultural lines based on overlapping ethos, not just geographical divisions.
The flip side of this is that if, years from now there's a "free speech" payment processor, cloud host, social network and all the rest, de-platforming for a different subculture than the current mainstream service providers allow becomes harder. We talk about the balkanization of the internet, but there's a possible future where there is a balkanization across cultural lines based on overlapping ethos, not just geographical divisions.
AWS AUP is pretty ambiguous. I suppose if Pirate Bay and Wikileaks found a way, Parler can too. Honestly, it's a bit surprising they chose AWS at all if they were just using bare metal products as another post suggests
https://aws.amazon.com/aup/
https://aws.amazon.com/aup/
This proves the multi-cloud advocates were right! If Parler used Kubernetes, they could migrate more quickly. /joke
I’m glad that private businesses have the ability and confidence to restrict government speech on their platforms.
What I find concerning, however, is a large group of companies which are direct competitors of each other are acting unilaterally to the ban same users on platforms completely unrelated.
What I find concerning, however, is a large group of companies which are direct competitors of each other are acting unilaterally to the ban same users on platforms completely unrelated.
I mean, given the current situation, which company wouldn’t do something so that if another event as bad or worse as the Capitol storming happens, they can say “look, we did all we could! It didn’t happen due to our platform!”
A tale as old as HN itself: a service enforces its own Terms of Service, and commenters fall over themselves to defend an absurd absolutist ideal of "free speech" even when it directly leads to a violent mob committing sedition against the United States.
Spare us, please. Reconcile your ideals with what's in front of you today before insisting that we need to live up to those ideals.
Spare us, please. Reconcile your ideals with what's in front of you today before insisting that we need to live up to those ideals.
If they were truly free speech absolutists they would acknowledge the Twitter/AWS/Apple/Google/etc. have the free speech right to decide what content they want to host.
I could try to explain how banning the right (starting with the extremists and now including the POTUS and presumably about 20% of the USA) would just push them into the online equivalent of desert training camps. But why bother? People will just say "That's their fault". This is not a smart way to discuss policy, but I fully expect that this is what it will degenerate into.
"Banning them drives them underground where they can be radicalised by the actual nazis!" That's their fault. End of story, we can all rest easy knowing that if the policy is counterproductive, we meant well (everyone thinks they mean well) and someone else is really to blame.
"Banning them drives them underground where they can be radicalised by the actual nazis!" That's their fault. End of story, we can all rest easy knowing that if the policy is counterproductive, we meant well (everyone thinks they mean well) and someone else is really to blame.
I dont see how the militias who brought bombs to capitol or planned execution of governor could be radicalized further.
I am also in uneasy when these are equated with general right wing. Yes, contemporary right wing is generally enabling them at best, but I still see it better if right wing wont become synonym with armed attackers groups.
I am also in uneasy when these are equated with general right wing. Yes, contemporary right wing is generally enabling them at best, but I still see it better if right wing wont become synonym with armed attackers groups.
This feels like an insane precedent to be setting.
Any platform that accepts user generated content can potentially end up in this situation. Amazon appears to be setting a precedent here that any platform that has not fully solved content moderation at scale risks being kicked of AWS.
It opens the door to what is effectively a DDoS; outpace moderation capability, get the site kicked off Amazon.
Any platform that accepts user generated content can potentially end up in this situation. Amazon appears to be setting a precedent here that any platform that has not fully solved content moderation at scale risks being kicked of AWS.
It opens the door to what is effectively a DDoS; outpace moderation capability, get the site kicked off Amazon.
Discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25707959 already.
Still accessible via the web, of course (and from what I understand Parler is a PWA that can be installed to the homescreen).
Until their hosting decides to block them, or my ISP, or several AS’s in the middle decide to block them and there’s no route to them.
The answers, respectively, would be: start your own hosting provider, start your own ISP, deploy your own Internet.
Just to be clear: I’ve never used Parler.
The answers, respectively, would be: start your own hosting provider, start your own ISP, deploy your own Internet.
Just to be clear: I’ve never used Parler.
From an engineering standpoint, this is definitely a cautionary tale about why you should be worried about vendor lock-in. If you don't own/maintain your entire deployment stack (right down to the bare-metal servers that your code is running on) you need to have some kind of plan for being able to migrate to a new vendor (whether because of a TOS violation or just the original vendor shuts down).
I don't know the technical details of the Parlor setup, but depending on how integrated they were with the AWS ecosystem, (e.g. using Lambda executors instead of just running services on EC2) moving off of AWS could mean huge changes to their architecture....
That being said, even in the best case scenario this kind of migration would be very expensive (S3 data egress fees??) and a 24 hour timeline seems absurd! Can anyone with experience in this area speak to if this kind of accelerated timeline is normal when it comes to web-hosting TOS violations? I just cannot imagine signing a contract with a hosting company that would allow them to unilaterally cancel my service with only 24 hours notice. (Admittedly, the NYT article references prior communication between Parlor and Amazon, so this is obviously not totally out-of-the-blue. Still, 24 hours from the final decision to account-deactivation seems insane for an enterprise offering....
(To be clear, I am not trying to argue for or against Amazon's decision to drop Parlor's account. I am just shocked that their AWS contract allows such a limited migration window for something like a TOS violation.)
I don't know the technical details of the Parlor setup, but depending on how integrated they were with the AWS ecosystem, (e.g. using Lambda executors instead of just running services on EC2) moving off of AWS could mean huge changes to their architecture....
That being said, even in the best case scenario this kind of migration would be very expensive (S3 data egress fees??) and a 24 hour timeline seems absurd! Can anyone with experience in this area speak to if this kind of accelerated timeline is normal when it comes to web-hosting TOS violations? I just cannot imagine signing a contract with a hosting company that would allow them to unilaterally cancel my service with only 24 hours notice. (Admittedly, the NYT article references prior communication between Parlor and Amazon, so this is obviously not totally out-of-the-blue. Still, 24 hours from the final decision to account-deactivation seems insane for an enterprise offering....
(To be clear, I am not trying to argue for or against Amazon's decision to drop Parlor's account. I am just shocked that their AWS contract allows such a limited migration window for something like a TOS violation.)
Owning your own hardware if not enough; if it was that easy it wouldn't be a big deal.
You still need access to the network, meaning people who are willing to peer with you. It'll be a big problem if a major player says "we'll cut you off if you peer with Parlor, directly or indirectly".
You also need access to domain names, payment providers, maybe advertising networks.
You still need access to the network, meaning people who are willing to peer with you. It'll be a big problem if a major player says "we'll cut you off if you peer with Parlor, directly or indirectly".
You also need access to domain names, payment providers, maybe advertising networks.
True! This is why I am interested in de-centralized solutions to some of these challenges.
- Social networks: https://joinmastodon.org/
- DNS: https://handshake.org/
- Payment Providers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency
(To be clear, it is not that I want to ensure that idiots always have a platform to spew their idiocy, but I would prefer that the decision on who is an idiot be distributed and not centralized.)
- Social networks: https://joinmastodon.org/
- DNS: https://handshake.org/
- Payment Providers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency
(To be clear, it is not that I want to ensure that idiots always have a platform to spew their idiocy, but I would prefer that the decision on who is an idiot be distributed and not centralized.)
seems like they have been in talks for a little while at least, where they could've possible remediated the issues to buy some more time to avoid the TOS violation. curious to see if they had any effort to clean it up or immediately started working to migrate
Yeah, based on what was said in the NYT article they did act to remove some of the posts in question. Ultimately it seems like Parlor's own moderation system was insufficient in dealing with the troublesome posts (either because the moderators declined to adequately enforce Parlor policies or because of a lack of moderators to deal with the sheer volume of content).
Either way, it seems like Parlor has some (albeit lax) content policies and it has a moderation system in place (this was how it was approved for the Apple store, etc in the first place). But when these failed to deal with content that Amazon did not like within the timeline that Amazon set, Amazon chose to cancel the contract. I assume these actions are all within the bounds of Parlor's AWS contract (or at least Amazon's lawyers believe they can successfully argue such). However, I remain surprised that this is how enterprise AWS contracts would be structured (though maybe this is just because I don't have any personal experience with them).
Either way, it seems like Parlor has some (albeit lax) content policies and it has a moderation system in place (this was how it was approved for the Apple store, etc in the first place). But when these failed to deal with content that Amazon did not like within the timeline that Amazon set, Amazon chose to cancel the contract. I assume these actions are all within the bounds of Parlor's AWS contract (or at least Amazon's lawyers believe they can successfully argue such). However, I remain surprised that this is how enterprise AWS contracts would be structured (though maybe this is just because I don't have any personal experience with them).
I’ve said it elsewhere, but can we now expect big tech companies to be more active in determining who they “platform?”
The Chinese government uses Twitter to spread horrific propaganda. Concentration camps are portrayed as vocational schools/feminist awareness centers.
If Big Tech decided to crack down in White supremecy, while turning the other way to the policies of the PRC, or the situation in Palestine, they’re just virtue signaling.
Bedsides, I’m sure if Parler really wants to, they can find a Russian server to host them.
The Chinese government uses Twitter to spread horrific propaganda. Concentration camps are portrayed as vocational schools/feminist awareness centers.
If Big Tech decided to crack down in White supremecy, while turning the other way to the policies of the PRC, or the situation in Palestine, they’re just virtue signaling.
Bedsides, I’m sure if Parler really wants to, they can find a Russian server to host them.
How is this submission on the front page and not this other submission from just 2 hours ago? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25707959
HNs algorithm has an anti-controvosy factor in it [0]. I expect having more comments than upvotes means the algorithm handles it harshly.
[0] eg, discussed 2010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781013
[0] eg, discussed 2010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781013
The various "big provider X boots conservative platform/person Y" are all popping on and off the front page fairly quickly. The comments are mostly what you would predict.
[deleted]
Use saas, it's safe, they said...
Dr. Goebbels is alive and well inside these tech firms. His tactics are being dusted off, updated and put into action. You say it doesn't bother you, but tomorrow or a little down the road, you may wake up and find you don't have a voice either. What happened at the Congress was unfortunate, but I don't think the Horn Man was going to overthrow the government, or that idiot sitting in Pelosi's chair.
This needs to happen. Parler is not a "social network" in the same way Twitter, Facebook or Reddit are. It is a radicalisation platform hiding behind a Silicon Valley style startup veneer.
I signed up for Parler 6 weeks ago and what I have seen from the platform is frightening. It isn't dumb memes and gifs but hardcore alt-right propaganda and conspiracy theories.
Within hours of commenting on posts I was contacted about joining groups of "like minded patriots" (their actual words). This lead to Telegram and Discord servers dedicated to "their cause". These places are highly organised. Unique URLs with multiple 'decoy and delay' steps to find and remove people from sharing links with authorities for example.
They have detailed (probably some of the best tbh) guides on signing up for secure services like Protonmail for email, installing Tor and Tails to access Onion services (this leads to a whole other world of horrors), how to use Bitcoin to purchase what are essentially burner SIM cards and phones to sign up to other services, and advice on how to recruit your friends and family such as conversation topics and “gotcha” responses, manipulated media to share, psychological and emotional manipulation techniques, etc.
The techniques used are no different to what we have seen from groups like ISIS/ISIL over the past decade.
I support free speech but this goes beyond that IMHO. This isn't strongly disagreeing with government policies but clearly talking about murdering those they believe are wrong. I have seen people seriously talking about kidnapping and murdering politicians. Posting photos of their weapons. Sharing detailed instructions on homemade chemical weapons and IEDs from people who clearly have military knowledge of such things.
When ISIS was releasing daily videos of horrific murders everyone called for such recruitment platforms to be shut down. It wasn't a matter of free speech then and it isn't now. The only difference is that these are (mostly) white American and European people not brown people from the middle east. The message and methodologies used are the same though.
Parler is without question a platform for radicalisation and recruitment for "western jihad" as I have seen people un-ironically use. It needs to go and I fully support Amazon, Apple, Google and whoever else in shutting them down.
I signed up for Parler 6 weeks ago and what I have seen from the platform is frightening. It isn't dumb memes and gifs but hardcore alt-right propaganda and conspiracy theories.
Within hours of commenting on posts I was contacted about joining groups of "like minded patriots" (their actual words). This lead to Telegram and Discord servers dedicated to "their cause". These places are highly organised. Unique URLs with multiple 'decoy and delay' steps to find and remove people from sharing links with authorities for example.
They have detailed (probably some of the best tbh) guides on signing up for secure services like Protonmail for email, installing Tor and Tails to access Onion services (this leads to a whole other world of horrors), how to use Bitcoin to purchase what are essentially burner SIM cards and phones to sign up to other services, and advice on how to recruit your friends and family such as conversation topics and “gotcha” responses, manipulated media to share, psychological and emotional manipulation techniques, etc.
The techniques used are no different to what we have seen from groups like ISIS/ISIL over the past decade.
I support free speech but this goes beyond that IMHO. This isn't strongly disagreeing with government policies but clearly talking about murdering those they believe are wrong. I have seen people seriously talking about kidnapping and murdering politicians. Posting photos of their weapons. Sharing detailed instructions on homemade chemical weapons and IEDs from people who clearly have military knowledge of such things.
When ISIS was releasing daily videos of horrific murders everyone called for such recruitment platforms to be shut down. It wasn't a matter of free speech then and it isn't now. The only difference is that these are (mostly) white American and European people not brown people from the middle east. The message and methodologies used are the same though.
Parler is without question a platform for radicalisation and recruitment for "western jihad" as I have seen people un-ironically use. It needs to go and I fully support Amazon, Apple, Google and whoever else in shutting them down.
You know you are a moderate when both sides want you dead.
This guarantees a renaissance for new p2p technologies, or a war, but still hoping the former mitigates the latter. It's very important to provide people with alternatives to violence, and every platform removal reduces the number of options by one. Discourse is the only alternative to violence. Remove discourse, and you literally walk right into it.
This guarantees a renaissance for new p2p technologies, or a war, but still hoping the former mitigates the latter. It's very important to provide people with alternatives to violence, and every platform removal reduces the number of options by one. Discourse is the only alternative to violence. Remove discourse, and you literally walk right into it.
Again, get known for being the place where coups are planned, and you won't enjoy the consequences. The free market is a lovely thing.
If parler defined their API in an open format, that anyone could implement, could a generic client app be allowed on the app store?
Not in my experience, no. I have a training YouTube video in my app and Apple rejected it because YouTube inserted their video recommendations after my training video was done, and one of those recommendations was a disturbing news footage.
You would have to reengineer your system along the lines of IRC where the app is divorced from the content.
You would have to reengineer your system along the lines of IRC where the app is divorced from the content.
Right so, when you open the app, you must choose a server to connect to, for the purposes of app verification, you provide a server with heavy moderation.
I could see apple having issue with providing pre-filled server selection, but if you had to manually enter a domain, I would be interested in how they would move the goal posts to deny an app like that.
I could see apple having issue with providing pre-filled server selection, but if you had to manually enter a domain, I would be interested in how they would move the goal posts to deny an app like that.
I think a good example here is Telegram. Telegram did not used to surface NSFW chats on iOS to comply with the App Store. But you could still join the channels manually. However, on a whim Apple decided that wasn't enough and now you cannot access those at all on iOS, you get a message saying it's blocked.
Of course, it wouldn't be able if they were committed to equal treatment, so the counterexample here are the many Reddit apps on iOS. You can join NSFW subreddits and they are allowed so long as they aren't shown by default. The only explanation is here Reddit is used by Apple employees or they know there would be an outcry if the rules were evenly applied.
Of course, it wouldn't be able if they were committed to equal treatment, so the counterexample here are the many Reddit apps on iOS. You can join NSFW subreddits and they are allowed so long as they aren't shown by default. The only explanation is here Reddit is used by Apple employees or they know there would be an outcry if the rules were evenly applied.
Great observation, thank you.
Something like that might work.
Their goal so far has been avoiding casual exposure to anything less than family-friendly. If a user has to go out of their way to procure offensive content it seems Apple is not that concerned - browsers, mail clients, IRC clients, etc is fine.
Their goal so far has been avoiding casual exposure to anything less than family-friendly. If a user has to go out of their way to procure offensive content it seems Apple is not that concerned - browsers, mail clients, IRC clients, etc is fine.
This is an excellent question!
As a gen-xer all of this incessant labeling is so bizarre.
What do you mean by incessant labeling?
Same here. I miss Usenet. Hacker culture really has changed.
Like "seditionist" or "terrorist" or "insurrectionist"?
This is a good use case I have been explaining my customers. Be ready to for a swift “de loud” action.
Legal? Probably.
An extremely dangerous precedent? Yes.
An extremely dangerous precedent? Yes.
> If we reasonably believe any of Your Content violates the law, infringes or misappropriates the rights of any third party, or otherwise violates a material term of the Agreement (including the documentation, the Service Terms, or the Acceptable Use Policy) (“Prohibited Content”), we will notify you of the Prohibited Content and may request that such content be removed from the Services or access to it be disabled. If you do not remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content within 2 business days of our notice, we may remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content or suspend the Services to the extent we are not able to remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content.
https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/
Folks are openly discussing treason. Parler ain't moderating it. Boot gotten.
Enforcing your "don't do crimes on our hardware" TOS is not remotely "precedent" setting. Besides, that only happens in court.
https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/
Folks are openly discussing treason. Parler ain't moderating it. Boot gotten.
Enforcing your "don't do crimes on our hardware" TOS is not remotely "precedent" setting. Besides, that only happens in court.
More dangerous than forcing AWS to do host them? Easy no.
America has become the nation of instant justice.
Allegations are not evidence are not proof.
We are witnessing a mass lynching.
Allegations are not evidence are not proof.
We are witnessing a mass lynching.
No. We’re witnessing the results of infrastructure lock-in with a risky business model. Parler’s Ops team should have known this was a possibility and planned for it.
Anyone can cancel your cloud service at any time, subject to the terms you agreed to when you hosted your shit.
Claiming this is a lynching is mind-blowingly insulting to the legacy of real people who were actually lynched (for nothing other than being black or brown near white people).
If you want to host hate speech, you’d be wise to invest in hardware somewhere beyond the US’s jurisdiction.
Anyone can cancel your cloud service at any time, subject to the terms you agreed to when you hosted your shit.
Claiming this is a lynching is mind-blowingly insulting to the legacy of real people who were actually lynched (for nothing other than being black or brown near white people).
If you want to host hate speech, you’d be wise to invest in hardware somewhere beyond the US’s jurisdiction.
> Allegations are not evidence are not proof.
I don't see what this has to do with the business relationship between Parler and AWS. AWS alleges Parler broke their terms of service, had no realistic plan to come into compliance, and was not really committed to coming into compliance based on the public statements of their CEO. So they kicked them off AWS.
I don't see what this has to do with the business relationship between Parler and AWS. AWS alleges Parler broke their terms of service, had no realistic plan to come into compliance, and was not really committed to coming into compliance based on the public statements of their CEO. So they kicked them off AWS.
10 years from now: “I never thought a leopard would eat MY face!”
Well this is uncharted territory. No way to know what the results of all this will be.
There is a vein of this that is highly partisan in nature, and it is this: faced with a single-party majority government, these censorious moves can be made now with complete impunity, and even without so much as a challenge.
Hey free speech absolutists: Given the venue, I’m guessing some of you work with distributed systems, right? What’s happening now is called a “circuit breaker”. When you have an emergency in progress and your system is melting down, you pull the plug and let the fire go out while you figure out what the heck is happening.
We had nearly absolute free speech on the internet and we got a delusional psycho mob organizing to invade the Capitol to avenge nonexistent election-stealing. So we know that doesn’t work. Let’s put the Capitol and the government back together and figure out what does.
We had nearly absolute free speech on the internet and we got a delusional psycho mob organizing to invade the Capitol to avenge nonexistent election-stealing. So we know that doesn’t work. Let’s put the Capitol and the government back together and figure out what does.
bpodgursky(1)
The solution to bad speech is good speech, not censorship.
We've been doing this for 20 years, it's only gotten worse. Good speech is losing and information reality has forked. We can't fix this by letting it ride.
Have a try at adding some “good” speech to some of those extremist threads
Can you provide any examples of this approach working in the last 40 years?
True. The banwave will unfortunately encourage even less honest debate, just even more siloing of opinion. Non-political and left wing thoughts stay on Twitter, while right wing thoughts are being forced into increasingly extreme environments.
It's pretty clear that many will soon move to platforms designed to be resilient to moderation.
It's pretty clear that many will soon move to platforms designed to be resilient to moderation.
I assume this means literally no other website on AWS is hosting content endorsing violence. Or they plan on policing this in general now. Or they do this kind of thing regularly and I am just unaware. Which is it?
It's most likely the last option.
Enforcing their terms against one client and not another doesn't mean they are greenlighting the other client. It just means they haven't gotten around to it. It's a fallacy to assume otherwise.
Enforcing their terms against one client and not another doesn't mean they are greenlighting the other client. It just means they haven't gotten around to it. It's a fallacy to assume otherwise.
I never claimed any assumptions, just listed the set of possible things which could be true. Each of them, if true, have their problems.
It's also entirely AWS' prerogative to decide when, on whom, and how to enforce their TOS. They reserve their rights ahead of time.
I see. So the fourth option which I omitted is that this a selective action that is inconsistent with their general behavior. I did so because I assume good faith on their part, but it sounds like you may disagree that is the case.
In China, the Hong Kong protestors are also banned from using social media because they were inciting violence.
Freedom of Association: An individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria.
There is clear conflict with how our society views the roles of private companies vs. individuals, the technology driven communication platforms they provide, and how individuals and groups use those platforms.
However, it is not a forgone conclusion that censorship by private organizations and individuals via platforms they control is a violation of freedom of speech.
No one has the right to forcibly silence someone else, with governments being only one of many traditional perpetrators with means and motives to do so. But individuals and groups cannot forcibly enlist others to help spread their message. My local church can't force me to espouse my love for their god, nor am I forced to listen to a random passerby on the street.
These 2 principals can be easily agreed with in theory, as requirements for a well functioning society. But with technology, comes the ability to convert capital into speech, and those 2 principals come into natural conflict. The written language, the printing press, the internet, etc. are all tools that can be used in conjunction with capital to amplify speech, and drown out the speech of others via shear volume. It isn't necessary to silence someone else, if yelling over them achieves the same effect.
Thus continues the ever-lasting compromise and conflict between our rights as individuals. There is no free lunch, no easy solution.
There is clear conflict with how our society views the roles of private companies vs. individuals, the technology driven communication platforms they provide, and how individuals and groups use those platforms.
However, it is not a forgone conclusion that censorship by private organizations and individuals via platforms they control is a violation of freedom of speech.
No one has the right to forcibly silence someone else, with governments being only one of many traditional perpetrators with means and motives to do so. But individuals and groups cannot forcibly enlist others to help spread their message. My local church can't force me to espouse my love for their god, nor am I forced to listen to a random passerby on the street.
These 2 principals can be easily agreed with in theory, as requirements for a well functioning society. But with technology, comes the ability to convert capital into speech, and those 2 principals come into natural conflict. The written language, the printing press, the internet, etc. are all tools that can be used in conjunction with capital to amplify speech, and drown out the speech of others via shear volume. It isn't necessary to silence someone else, if yelling over them achieves the same effect.
Thus continues the ever-lasting compromise and conflict between our rights as individuals. There is no free lunch, no easy solution.
Something I don't think I've heard very many people ask:
Are the Apple/Google evictions as well as the AWS eviction a consequence of the attack on the Capitol, or are they a consequence of something else?
Such as FOSTA/SESTA?
Parler got booted for not moderating anything, but if I understand correctly, not moderating anything puts Parler at acute risk of FOSTA/SESTA exposure, and that exposure runs both uphill (Apple/Google stores) and downhill (AWS) if none of them act on it.
Are the Apple/Google evictions as well as the AWS eviction a consequence of the attack on the Capitol, or are they a consequence of something else?
Such as FOSTA/SESTA?
Parler got booted for not moderating anything, but if I understand correctly, not moderating anything puts Parler at acute risk of FOSTA/SESTA exposure, and that exposure runs both uphill (Apple/Google stores) and downhill (AWS) if none of them act on it.
I'm just curious, who introduced and signed that act into law?
Oh I'm well aware it was signed by the current president. Don't read between the lines in my last comment; I'm not expressing any views because I'm trying to encourage broad engagement around this question.
Part of what makes this situation interesting/concerning is that it's not hard to imagine that censoring unwanted or problematic speech might become technically infeasible at some point in the not so distant future.
I'm not at all a crypto maximalist. However, let's assume that the technical questions about the viability of large-scale, highly performant distributed apps running on blockchains get worked out. Assuming we eventually do have something like a de-centralized Facebook running on something like Ethereum, how could we ever expect to avert situations like this in the future by moderating content? If that content was stored on an immutable blockchain, it might be impossible to moderate. The only solution would be to somehow take down the entire blockchain network.
Related to this, there seems to be something important about the interactivity and responsiveness of a social media platform that's connected with how useful it could be to organize movements like this. Maybe, if it turns out that blockchain-based solutions can't get around having the built-in latency of something like a block time, then dapps will never be viable alternatives to centralized social media platforms.
I'm not at all a crypto maximalist. However, let's assume that the technical questions about the viability of large-scale, highly performant distributed apps running on blockchains get worked out. Assuming we eventually do have something like a de-centralized Facebook running on something like Ethereum, how could we ever expect to avert situations like this in the future by moderating content? If that content was stored on an immutable blockchain, it might be impossible to moderate. The only solution would be to somehow take down the entire blockchain network.
Related to this, there seems to be something important about the interactivity and responsiveness of a social media platform that's connected with how useful it could be to organize movements like this. Maybe, if it turns out that blockchain-based solutions can't get around having the built-in latency of something like a block time, then dapps will never be viable alternatives to centralized social media platforms.
Than goodness for this potential future. I think is why the blockchain is so demonized by the tech community, because it free the people from tge slavery to the large corporations that's making them money hand over fist.
I can understand why Apple might act to protect their business or to avoid liability.
The App Store is clearly a curated platform, so Apple could potentially be held liable for harmful apps that it publishes.
Moreover they are within their rights to drop any app that they don't wish to publish, or that they claim violates their terms of service – just as Nintendo can drop a game from the eShop.
It could backfire somewhat if they become viewed as unfairly censoring political opinions.
The App Store is clearly a curated platform, so Apple could potentially be held liable for harmful apps that it publishes.
Moreover they are within their rights to drop any app that they don't wish to publish, or that they claim violates their terms of service – just as Nintendo can drop a game from the eShop.
It could backfire somewhat if they become viewed as unfairly censoring political opinions.
It’s hilarious to see all these alt right folks clamor about free speech. Always thought they were big defenders of free markets and corporate friendly policy.
these corporations may as well be the government
Unsurprisingly it seems that submission has been flagged off the front page, ironic, in the Alanis Morissette sense.
[deleted]
I'm leaning towards thinking that what happened on the 6th was, to some extent, blowback. There has been an extraordinary amount of violence over the last few years which has been ignored, rationalized, justified, and even labeled, in an Orwellian way, "peaceful". This did not gone unnoticed. There were other relevant circumstances, but I think blowback is certainly a large portion of it.
I read somewhere yesterday that "political orientation" should be added as a protected class. I think there is a lot of merit to that idea.
Curious: Did they just delist from the App Store, or did they also revoke certs so that previously installed instances of the app no longer launch?
The app still loads for me
Comment on r/aws:
>I am praying and hoping that Parler chose to use DynamoDB, Cognito, API GW, lambda functions, SnS//SQS , Cloudwatch etc. :-D
>I am praying and hoping that Parler chose to use DynamoDB, Cognito, API GW, lambda functions, SnS//SQS , Cloudwatch etc. :-D
Parler could of course get back on AWS/Apple/Play Store if they chose to moderate their worst element, but the CEO decided they won’t do that.
I’d guess at least part of his reasoning is because they wouldn’t have enough remaining non-violent conservative voices, because non-violent conservative voices weren’t banned from Twitter/FB etc, the violent and conspiratorial fringe was.
I’d guess at least part of his reasoning is because they wouldn’t have enough remaining non-violent conservative voices, because non-violent conservative voices weren’t banned from Twitter/FB etc, the violent and conspiratorial fringe was.
Ben Thompson over at Stratechery had a pretty good post on approaching content moderation here https://stratechery.com/2021/trump-and-twitter/
Will be interesting to see what he says next week about AWS, as that's further down the stack than something like Twitter.
Will be interesting to see what he says next week about AWS, as that's further down the stack than something like Twitter.
You can't really blame them, but I do wonder whether a private company ought to have so much power. Some speech (that presents a CLEAR and imminent danger) should absolutely be regulated--but as platforms grow the levers for enforcement shift increasingly from the government to corporations, and I'm convinced that that isn't a good thing.
The cohesive argument I've seen these platforms make isn't that this speech shouldn't be regulated, but that there should be legal rather than cherry-picked consequences for the instigators. Meaning: if someone is making death threats, go ahead and arrest them and try them in court under whatever laws they have violated.
If they have not violated any laws, then that speech is legal and should be allowed to stay up. Right now there is a weird middle ground where nobody is directly prosecuted but they do face consequences in the form of de-platforming. But if someone is so dangerous that they do not deserve a platform, then the right answer is obviously not to take away their Twitter privileges, but to place them in jail where they cannot continue to cause more harm. If they are not deemed harmful enough to jail, then de-platforming them is (they argue) unfair.
If they have not violated any laws, then that speech is legal and should be allowed to stay up. Right now there is a weird middle ground where nobody is directly prosecuted but they do face consequences in the form of de-platforming. But if someone is so dangerous that they do not deserve a platform, then the right answer is obviously not to take away their Twitter privileges, but to place them in jail where they cannot continue to cause more harm. If they are not deemed harmful enough to jail, then de-platforming them is (they argue) unfair.
I agree--they should be investigated and then charged with crimes. I'd just prefer if someone's going to be silenced that it arise from a court order, not some corporation's potentially-compromised sense of morality/decency.
Is this particular move by Apple, Google, Facebook, and Twitter the end of big tech in the US?
My concern the following. These companies have shown that they wield a huge amount of power. With their actions in the Georgia Senate in removing Republic ads, hey have likely frightened 50 sitting Senators. The democratic party has never shied away from regulation. So we likely now have two parties aligned in their desire for control of social media. Will this result strong federal regulation for social media and its ecosystem (AWS, Google Cloud, App stores)?
I wouldn't expect nationalization or audience distribution limitations, but instead perhaps application of exceedingly strong federal oversight over any media distribution platform and its ecosystem akin to early days of radio and television.
An end result of this would be a dramatic change in how freely they operate, putting them in a regulatory position akin to Microsoft's 2002 consent decree.
My concern the following. These companies have shown that they wield a huge amount of power. With their actions in the Georgia Senate in removing Republic ads, hey have likely frightened 50 sitting Senators. The democratic party has never shied away from regulation. So we likely now have two parties aligned in their desire for control of social media. Will this result strong federal regulation for social media and its ecosystem (AWS, Google Cloud, App stores)?
I wouldn't expect nationalization or audience distribution limitations, but instead perhaps application of exceedingly strong federal oversight over any media distribution platform and its ecosystem akin to early days of radio and television.
An end result of this would be a dramatic change in how freely they operate, putting them in a regulatory position akin to Microsoft's 2002 consent decree.
If people on an app continually call for violence and violate your TOS you can boot them off. Especially if the app in question has no good faith moderation of content to meet your terms of service and their terms of service are either lacking or wink wink levels of enforcement.
You can have ANY political perspective you want! Lower taxes, raise taxes, immigration policy, school choice, charter schools WHATEVER! You just can’t have hate speech against protected classes or call for violence. If you have an issues with the protected classes then VOTE!!! Also debate on what should and shouldn’t be a protected class is also OK!
These companies exist to make money. They have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. Aiding and abetting political violence is a sure fire way to hurt shareholder value. The market has judged that “pro violence” speech is to be de-monetized.
You can have ANY political perspective you want! Lower taxes, raise taxes, immigration policy, school choice, charter schools WHATEVER! You just can’t have hate speech against protected classes or call for violence. If you have an issues with the protected classes then VOTE!!! Also debate on what should and shouldn’t be a protected class is also OK!
These companies exist to make money. They have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. Aiding and abetting political violence is a sure fire way to hurt shareholder value. The market has judged that “pro violence” speech is to be de-monetized.
I suspect they could even have the hate speech against protected classes. Voat survived. 4chan survives. Numerous hateful websites survive. The KKK has websites. Parler was no better a week ago.
These sites all get eliminated when they are tied to a violent attack.
These sites all get eliminated when they are tied to a violent attack.
Agreed. The bottom line is very clear: do not (directly) cause violent attack. The society is already bearing with them, they may even be able to indirectly cause violent attacks.
You can't expect everyone to love everyone. But violence is the red line.
You can't expect everyone to love everyone. But violence is the red line.
How do you link (legally) hate speech (protected by constitution) -> “direct” violence -> individuals -> charges?
Haven’t seen evidence of that in any of these cases, by companies, MSM, legal parties, or honest people—- especially when looking at riots earlier in the year.
Haven’t seen evidence of that in any of these cases, by companies, MSM, legal parties, or honest people—- especially when looking at riots earlier in the year.
Yes hopefully this is people trying to do the “right” thing in the face of a tragedy (whether you think it is the right thing or not)
However, even from a cynical pragmatist view the attack causes previously high engagement “viral” content that stirred controversy/discussion and most importantly ad views/clicks into something that advertisers will most likely refuse to allow their ads to be displayed alongside.
It essentially shifted from financial asset to liability and so the companies dumped it...
However, even from a cynical pragmatist view the attack causes previously high engagement “viral” content that stirred controversy/discussion and most importantly ad views/clicks into something that advertisers will most likely refuse to allow their ads to be displayed alongside.
It essentially shifted from financial asset to liability and so the companies dumped it...
How many violent attacks have resulted from activity on Facebook?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934
There have been tons of instances of mob killings incited on Facebook in other countries.
There have been tons of instances of mob killings incited on Facebook in other countries.
Seems like Facebook should play a bigger role in preventing that than it does.
Or uh, ahem, y'know, Twitter.
How quickly we forget the Arab Spring.
How quickly we forget the Arab Spring.
Yeah, and 4Chan has about half a dozen mass killings to their name.
I think the argument being made here is that Parler doesn't care as much as Facebook about bad things happening.
Probably many. Especially in countries where organized lynching is still a thing.
You can certainly find reports of people proudly sharing the videos of doing the lynching on social media. So I don't see why it wouldn't be organized via social media too.
You can certainly find reports of people proudly sharing the videos of doing the lynching on social media. So I don't see why it wouldn't be organized via social media too.
Violent attacks on seats of government do tend to get attention and extra sanctions, I think we can admit that.
Voat didn't survive. 4chan is born again compared to its beginnings.
>You just can’t have hate speech against protected classes
"hate" speech is fully protected by the US constitution. Though I have to ask where you got the idea that in a world where it's ok to ban hate speech the powers that be somehow decided to only ban it in the case of protected classes? What a strange morality.
"hate" speech is fully protected by the US constitution. Though I have to ask where you got the idea that in a world where it's ok to ban hate speech the powers that be somehow decided to only ban it in the case of protected classes? What a strange morality.
The Constitution does not impel corporations to provide a platform for hate speech. It is mostly about limits to government powers or rights of citizens vis-à-vis their government.
As a free market fundamentalist that usually gets massive pushback, I'm having trouble believing that most people making this argument normally promote free markets.
It certainly seems politically slanted in a single direction. Either way, I hope more people join the Fediverse and get away from these walled-gardens.
It certainly seems politically slanted in a single direction. Either way, I hope more people join the Fediverse and get away from these walled-gardens.
> I'm having trouble believing that most people making this argument normally promote free markets
I’m a staunch free marketer and First Amendment advocate. I think this is a freedom of assembly issue. Amazon should not be forced to assemble with these customers.
If anything, this same group has fought for a more extreme version of this freedom through its don’t-sell-cakes-to-gays schtick.
(To be clear, I support e.g. the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to speech. They say awful things. But they have the right to. If they started organising murders or lootings of gay-owned businesses, on the other hand, I would not consider their actions protected.)
I’m a staunch free marketer and First Amendment advocate. I think this is a freedom of assembly issue. Amazon should not be forced to assemble with these customers.
If anything, this same group has fought for a more extreme version of this freedom through its don’t-sell-cakes-to-gays schtick.
(To be clear, I support e.g. the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to speech. They say awful things. But they have the right to. If they started organising murders or lootings of gay-owned businesses, on the other hand, I would not consider their actions protected.)
I think an argument like this is consistent with free (i.e. few rules) markets. Isn't it the same argument as saying businesses should be allowed to refuse customers based on, say, sexual orientation? People may not agree with that and would want government to require businesses to serve some customers and, in this case, not others. However, I tend to think business and customer relationships should be voluntary as much as possible.
The person I responded to was clearly not speaking about what corporations allow. Reread the second paragraph.
Protected from persecution by the government, which means it has absolutely ZERO relevance to the actions of a private company that has its own right to free speech. They can ban whatever they want! They could say “if you don’t use the oxford comma GTFO” It is their platform. If your solution is to nationalize Twitter, FB etc. then well China is right over there....
Also and because people were apparently deeply failed by their civics classes in HS, “publicly traded” does not mean a company still isn’t private. Private means not owned/run by the state.
Also and because people were apparently deeply failed by their civics classes in HS, “publicly traded” does not mean a company still isn’t private. Private means not owned/run by the state.
The paragraph I pulled that quote from is clearly about the law and government, not corporations. It makes no sense otherwise. When was the last time you saw a corporation make a list of protected classes?
They just typically default enforcement guidelines to mirror them. Feel free to test that theory with burner accounts or look up moderation policies.
you cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre which at this time, this essentially is.
i hope this isn’t news to you but there are all sorts of restrictions on free speech built up over the country’s history...
i hope this isn’t news to you but there are all sorts of restrictions on free speech built up over the country’s history...
This is true for what the government can do legally that infringes on your right to free speech. Yes they can violate your first amendment rights in that case.
However, this does not apply at all to private companies. They could, theoretically, have ridiculous rules “Everyone must refer to themselves in the 3rd person or we ban you” and it is totally legal because it is their platform. 1st amendment applies to private companies only to guarantee their OWN right to free speech.
However, this does not apply at all to private companies. They could, theoretically, have ridiculous rules “Everyone must refer to themselves in the 3rd person or we ban you” and it is totally legal because it is their platform. 1st amendment applies to private companies only to guarantee their OWN right to free speech.
Correct. You can't falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't obstruct an existential war, you can't spread anti-vaccine propaganda during a pandemic.
These are all legal arguments with a well-established history.
These are all legal arguments with a well-established history.
I was saying the individual app’s TOS typically prohibit hate speech against classes that typically align with judicial cases of what constitutes a “hate crime” against a certain class or category of people
The market didn't decide anything, it's not like any stock prices are reacting to this speech being allowed by these corporations or not. These decisions are made by a handful of unaccountable, anonymous people in closed rooms, hiding by the institutions they work for.
Please feel free to start your own closed door company that is not accountable to host the violent political opinions of your choice then.
Much like gay wedding cakes or nazi cupcakes, you cannot force a company to host your content if they choose not to.
Much like gay wedding cakes or nazi cupcakes, you cannot force a company to host your content if they choose not to.
> Much like gay wedding cakes or nazi cupcakes, you cannot force a company to host your content if they choose not to.
Elane Photography paid thousands and thousands of dollars in fines for choosing not to work a lesbian wedding at a time when lesbian weddings were not legal in New Mexico. They never got their money back. It's not as cut and dried as you imply.
Elane Photography paid thousands and thousands of dollars in fines for choosing not to work a lesbian wedding at a time when lesbian weddings were not legal in New Mexico. They never got their money back. It's not as cut and dried as you imply.
> you cannot force a company to host your content if they choose not to.
Thats actually not true. There are numerous businesses that are absolutely forced to distribute your content, even if they don't like it.
The obvious example is the phone network, and other common carriers. There are a whole set of laws that do indeed force these companies to distribute your content.
Thats actually not true. There are numerous businesses that are absolutely forced to distribute your content, even if they don't like it.
The obvious example is the phone network, and other common carriers. There are a whole set of laws that do indeed force these companies to distribute your content.
What we call carriers or other monopoly service providers (think power and water, possibly ISP).
Are you going to take the next step and consider AWS, Twitter, and Facebook monopoly carriers or service providers? Under their current definitions they are not and can cut ties with you for what ever reason they want (barring protected class issues I assume).
Are you going to take the next step and consider AWS, Twitter, and Facebook monopoly carriers or service providers? Under their current definitions they are not and can cut ties with you for what ever reason they want (barring protected class issues I assume).
I think the problem for me is the monopoly status this all reveals about the companies involved (Twitter, Amazon, etc.).
If you step back a bit too, there's another issue I have, which is that it seems to me these companies are coming down hard against the idea of free speech. Let's look at it this way: some group believes the Big Social Media Companies are being politically biased in a way they disagree with, in part because of active moderation that reflects decisions by that company about what's "correct" or "incorrect". So they say "hey we're going to start a new social media platform that we don't moderate." This gets used by violent extremists.
Then some other Big Tech companies tell this new company, predicated on unmoderated speech, to moderate their speech too or they will cut resources.
As others have noted, plenty of violent behavior has been organized on Twitter or Facebook, and it hasn't received the same sort of punishment and ostracism. So why Parler? Because some groups on it are supportive of Trump? Because it's the US government? It's hard for me to take appeals to quashing violent behavior seriously when they're so arbitrary in their application at some level.
At some level, it doesn't matter to me, because there's another argument, which is that the platforms should be very removed from the content on them, like a phone company. They could be promoting that, and instead they're going hard in the other direction, which is to support heavy "moderation" by monopolies. I don't want big business "moderating" speech, or having that much power to do so.
My political inclinations are very different from Trump or anything in these insurrections but I don't like the way it's headed, and I don't see the gay wedding cakes as remotely the same.
If there were three wedding cake companies in the entire English-speaking world, and wedding cakes were a universal requirement for getting married, I might feel the same. In fact, in some ways I do feel the same, but I also would say maybe there should be a lot more wedding cake companies.
If you step back a bit too, there's another issue I have, which is that it seems to me these companies are coming down hard against the idea of free speech. Let's look at it this way: some group believes the Big Social Media Companies are being politically biased in a way they disagree with, in part because of active moderation that reflects decisions by that company about what's "correct" or "incorrect". So they say "hey we're going to start a new social media platform that we don't moderate." This gets used by violent extremists.
Then some other Big Tech companies tell this new company, predicated on unmoderated speech, to moderate their speech too or they will cut resources.
As others have noted, plenty of violent behavior has been organized on Twitter or Facebook, and it hasn't received the same sort of punishment and ostracism. So why Parler? Because some groups on it are supportive of Trump? Because it's the US government? It's hard for me to take appeals to quashing violent behavior seriously when they're so arbitrary in their application at some level.
At some level, it doesn't matter to me, because there's another argument, which is that the platforms should be very removed from the content on them, like a phone company. They could be promoting that, and instead they're going hard in the other direction, which is to support heavy "moderation" by monopolies. I don't want big business "moderating" speech, or having that much power to do so.
My political inclinations are very different from Trump or anything in these insurrections but I don't like the way it's headed, and I don't see the gay wedding cakes as remotely the same.
If there were three wedding cake companies in the entire English-speaking world, and wedding cakes were a universal requirement for getting married, I might feel the same. In fact, in some ways I do feel the same, but I also would say maybe there should be a lot more wedding cake companies.
> plenty of violent behavior has been organized on Twitter or Facebook
Twitter and Facebook made a concerted efforts around 1st-party paid employees that are responsible for macro-moderation across their platforms. Parler instead just replied "our volunteer moderators will handle it". Even reddit has 1st-party moderation, despite their large volunteer moderator community.
Twitter and Facebook made a concerted efforts around 1st-party paid employees that are responsible for macro-moderation across their platforms. Parler instead just replied "our volunteer moderators will handle it". Even reddit has 1st-party moderation, despite their large volunteer moderator community.
Awesome analysis. This pretty much nails it
Why would they need to be accountable? They aren’t breaking any laws and they aren’t elected officials...
Sure the government could interfere and make more laws and regulate but the typical conservative position would not be in favor of government meddling....
Sure the government could interfere and make more laws and regulate but the typical conservative position would not be in favor of government meddling....
That is how the market works. Nothing in capitalism says 'you must be transparent in how you conduct business'... in fact, it's literally the opposite! Most things must be kept secret if you don't want your business to get outcompeted.
Businesses are almost as big as state governments, but are undemocratic. They are run like dictatorships. If you don't like this, you don't like markets.
Businesses are almost as big as state governments, but are undemocratic. They are run like dictatorships. If you don't like this, you don't like markets.
Yeah by the fact that the free market created these platforms and gave them power.
Us on the left have been fucking telling everyone for years that these companies are dangerous but everyone else embraced them.
These companies yanked the plug on many leftist communities and dozens of social media networks for sex workers. To this day VISA and Mastercard don't allow payments to come in if the website is mainly sex related.
Where the hell was the outrage then? We begged people to support us and tell these companies to back off but no one did.
The inaction of everyone has lead to this. Welcome to how "free market capitalism" actually just means dozens of small unaccountable governments with more power than hundreds of countries combined. You asked for this. Take it.
Us on the left have been fucking telling everyone for years that these companies are dangerous but everyone else embraced them.
These companies yanked the plug on many leftist communities and dozens of social media networks for sex workers. To this day VISA and Mastercard don't allow payments to come in if the website is mainly sex related.
Where the hell was the outrage then? We begged people to support us and tell these companies to back off but no one did.
The inaction of everyone has lead to this. Welcome to how "free market capitalism" actually just means dozens of small unaccountable governments with more power than hundreds of countries combined. You asked for this. Take it.
My only quibble with this is that “the left” is a bit broad — SESTA/FOSTA was bipartisan legislation unfortunately spearheaded by my Democratic representative, Carolyn Maloney.
Other than that, this is spot on. Conservatives have been happy to tell everyone to let the free market decide, only to cry foul when the market makes a decision they don’t like. Turns out you can’t have it both ways.
Other than that, this is spot on. Conservatives have been happy to tell everyone to let the free market decide, only to cry foul when the market makes a decision they don’t like. Turns out you can’t have it both ways.
As a big proponent of the free market, I think the problem stems from "sometimes free market."
Also, it seems that these moves by tech companies are acting in unison (Apple, Google, Amazon) to the satisfaction of one political party (that just happens to have won 2 branches of the federal government).
Also, it seems that these moves by tech companies are acting in unison (Apple, Google, Amazon) to the satisfaction of one political party (that just happens to have won 2 branches of the federal government).
It’s possible that that they’re trying to get in the good graces of the incoming administration. It’s also possible that they’ve wanted to do this all along, but feared legal retaliation from the outgoing one. (The latter feels kinda gross, as they could certainly weather the retaliation better than the people they’re trying to protect now).
It’s also possible that this truly just happened to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Regardless, my general inclination with regard to these companies is that we should have a free market but break up any one that gets large enough such that getting kicked off presents a moral issue. VPS is highly commoditized, so I don’t really care that they got kicked off AWS, but Facebook and Twitter are a bit thornier.
It’s also possible that this truly just happened to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Regardless, my general inclination with regard to these companies is that we should have a free market but break up any one that gets large enough such that getting kicked off presents a moral issue. VPS is highly commoditized, so I don’t really care that they got kicked off AWS, but Facebook and Twitter are a bit thornier.
Hopefully condemnation of violence and the removal of digital systems that enable violence is bipartisan?
If it isn’t then morally they should side with the party who is against violence.
If it isn’t then financially it is prudent to side with the side that will keep the advertiser dollars flowing. (Biden won 70% of the economy and the majority of the people, especially the wealthy and well educated)
If it isn’t then morally they should side with the party who is against violence.
If it isn’t then financially it is prudent to side with the side that will keep the advertiser dollars flowing. (Biden won 70% of the economy and the majority of the people, especially the wealthy and well educated)
No one on the left considers Democrats to be "on the left"
> the free market created these platforms and gave them power.
I'm pretty sure our tax dollars fund DARPA. [+] A substantial portion of the technology we're talking about here was funded by Public money.
[++] So when making all these fine points about discretion of private companies regarding the use of their platforms, it must be remembered that none of FANGs would even exists without technology and both military contracted private and academic research that were funded by American taxpayers' money.
I'm pretty sure our tax dollars fund DARPA. [+] A substantial portion of the technology we're talking about here was funded by Public money.
[++] So when making all these fine points about discretion of private companies regarding the use of their platforms, it must be remembered that none of FANGs would even exists without technology and both military contracted private and academic research that were funded by American taxpayers' money.
This is pretty lackluster reasoning, it would follow that since Benjamin Franklin was the discoverer of electricity and DARPA Net came from that so....
Taxpayer funding has no bearing on the commercialization of products down the road. It is not a special case of intellectual property...
Taxpayer funding has no bearing on the commercialization of products down the road. It is not a special case of intellectual property...
I'll return the favor and consider your reply as a strawman. But even then, let's compare Ben Franklin's capital outlay vs the Federal government's in DARPA.
Issue is not IP. Did I mention IP? There are extant congressional records of discussions in Congress regarding gifting this technology to "business" in service of the American public (one presumes). There is an implicit social contract at work here.
Issue is not IP. Did I mention IP? There are extant congressional records of discussions in Congress regarding gifting this technology to "business" in service of the American public (one presumes). There is an implicit social contract at work here.
DARPAnet is as far from
Twitter as the Wright Brothers Flyer is from a 747. There is no implicit social or legal contract. A gift is well a gift. No backsies.
Here, Here!
>Where the hell was the outrage then? We begged people to support us and tell these companies to back off but no one did.
>The inaction of everyone has lead to this. Welcome to how "free market capitalism" actually just means dozens of small unaccountable governments with more power than hundreds of countries combined. You asked for this. Take it.
There was no inaction. The inactivity was intentional. Things were going great. Bank balances were going up, everything was centralizing, everyone else putting off the difficulty of learning to actually make something and keep it free.
The last 4 years has injected more jade into my worldview than the rest of the years of my life combined.
>Where the hell was the outrage then? We begged people to support us and tell these companies to back off but no one did.
>The inaction of everyone has lead to this. Welcome to how "free market capitalism" actually just means dozens of small unaccountable governments with more power than hundreds of countries combined. You asked for this. Take it.
There was no inaction. The inactivity was intentional. Things were going great. Bank balances were going up, everything was centralizing, everyone else putting off the difficulty of learning to actually make something and keep it free.
The last 4 years has injected more jade into my worldview than the rest of the years of my life combined.
I'm amazed that this is so difficult to understand especially on a site like this.
A lot of it hinges on judgement. What is a "good faith moderation" effort? That ambiguity would make many uncomfortable.
It is very hard to write a clear set of rules about where the line is.
It is very hard to write a clear set of rules about where the line is.
It's because people on this site are largely sympathetic to the views espoused on Parler. If this were something else, we would hear them railing about "property rights".
Your whole second paragraph is incorrect, people posting that on Parley had their forum shut down. 99.99% of Parler is benign (often conservative) content, yet they are being shut out for having some of the wrong people around them.
you should read the amazon letter. basically most of their reports of this violence inciting stuff were ignored and stuff wasn’t taken down.
That doesn't matter though in the context of what I said above though, what someone else may post on HN or their moderation policies shouldn't impact my content or my access to it.
Amazon is a private company and can do whatever it wants. It could ban apps that don’t use the oxford comma in written communication just for giggles.
Parler repeatedly refused to take down TOS violating speech. As far as 99% vs 1%, well persecuting the majority for the actions of a minority is very “patriotic” and an american tradition just ask a muslim ;)
Parler repeatedly refused to take down TOS violating speech. As far as 99% vs 1%, well persecuting the majority for the actions of a minority is very “patriotic” and an american tradition just ask a muslim ;)
[deleted]
The market has not judged "pro-violence" speech to be demonetized.
Platforms sanction calls to violent riots from Black Lives Matter and Antifa. So this is all fully based on the political feelings of the platform.
Edit "Platforms also sanction the use of violence by nation states".
Platforms sanction calls to violent riots from Black Lives Matter and Antifa. So this is all fully based on the political feelings of the platform.
Edit "Platforms also sanction the use of violence by nation states".
That is the market deciding. Twitter's market is liberals and leftists, so twitter changes the platform based on their demand. If you don't like this, then you don't like free markets.
My goodness this thread is crazy....
Many HN posters: "We love free markets, every company should follow their own rules and do what they want"
Company bans violent and insurrectionist speech as is their legal right
Many HN posters: "No, not like that!"
Many HN posters: "We love free markets, every company should follow their own rules and do what they want"
Company bans violent and insurrectionist speech as is their legal right
Many HN posters: "No, not like that!"
I don't particularly like free markets but I have a very specific qualification for Twitter.
If an American platform hosts public officials who use that platform for political purposes, then it should follow that all American citizens should have access to engage, comment and react.
Public officials relying on private platforms for public policy purposes, fundraising etc seems absurd and grotesquely undemocratic.
If an American platform hosts public officials who use that platform for political purposes, then it should follow that all American citizens should have access to engage, comment and react.
Public officials relying on private platforms for public policy purposes, fundraising etc seems absurd and grotesquely undemocratic.
Twitter’s only duty is to maximize shareholder value like good capitalists without breaking laws. It isn’t breaking laws. It is making a bet that kicking of certain people will help the platform in the long run (same bet that AWS, Google etc are making) If your views are so fringe that the majority of the tech co’s are telling you to GTFO well then society as a majority is voting against you getting a bullhorn. Otherwise they would be worried about a boycott by users/advertisers. If you think the giants have misjudged then I am sure you could find funding for a competing site and infrastructure. Free market capitalism is about allocation of capital in a democratic society not about deciding what the rules of that should be that is the govts job. Please vote!
Strongly agree on public officials using private platforms for policy, but they must have seen something attractive about it. Free people and whatnot...
Strongly agree on public officials using private platforms for policy, but they must have seen something attractive about it. Free people and whatnot...
> The market has judged that “pro violence” speech is to be de-monetized.
“The market” seems to reach this conclusion en masse immediately after it’s clear that the political and regulatory winds have changed.
I don’t know much about Parler, and for the record am about as opposed to Donald Trump and his supporters as one can be. I view these moves by tech companies quite cynically.
“The market” seems to reach this conclusion en masse immediately after it’s clear that the political and regulatory winds have changed.
I don’t know much about Parler, and for the record am about as opposed to Donald Trump and his supporters as one can be. I view these moves by tech companies quite cynically.
They exist to maximize shareholder value within the bounds of the rules of law. I think you are right, content that was controversial and highly engaging/debated became a massive liability. When an asset becomes toxic you dump it.
It just happened to be that Google, Apple and Amazon all banned Parler within hours of each other, shortly after all the big social media companies banned President Trump, thus boosting Parler as an alternative social media platform.
This is not about fiduciary duty, nor is it about legal liability, this is a Silicon Valley hivemind moving in unison, arguably as a result of unhealthy discourse on their own social medias.
This is not about fiduciary duty, nor is it about legal liability, this is a Silicon Valley hivemind moving in unison, arguably as a result of unhealthy discourse on their own social medias.
Maybe just no hate speech in general? I'm not totally clear what a protected class means in this context. Like what would hate speech towards a non protected class look like?
Edit: Thanks for correcting my ignorance.
Edit: Thanks for correcting my ignorance.
In the US, protected classes are well defined in law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
[deleted]
>The market has judged that “pro violence” speech is to be de-monetized.
No is just the rich elites who fear getting the rope (which they know its deserved)
Liberal vs conservative is just divide and conquer
No is just the rich elites who fear getting the rope (which they know its deserved)
Liberal vs conservative is just divide and conquer
Free speech is not "without consequences". There's nothing stopping them from starting their own data centre.
There was nothing stopping them from starting their own app... Until Amazon came along.
There is nothing stopping them from starting their own data center... Until the ISPs come along.
There is nothing stopping them from starting their own data center... Until the ISPs come along.
Well, I can't read through 3000 comments, but I'll say here I'm surprised at the naivete I've read about this incident.
These companies didn't wake up yesterday morning and decide Parler was "bad". There's been a power shift in Washington, and they are trying to signal to the new people in power "We're on your side, we'll listen! No need to regulate us!"
That's the real problem here - there's more to this than a private company deciding who is on their platform, which is their prerogative. There is implicit (and explicit) political pressure to do so. That's what is scary and, in my opinion, wrong. And it isn't a left-right thing. I'm sure the Republicans are looking at this and getting the same message, and would be just as happy to use the same tools.
These companies didn't wake up yesterday morning and decide Parler was "bad". There's been a power shift in Washington, and they are trying to signal to the new people in power "We're on your side, we'll listen! No need to regulate us!"
That's the real problem here - there's more to this than a private company deciding who is on their platform, which is their prerogative. There is implicit (and explicit) political pressure to do so. That's what is scary and, in my opinion, wrong. And it isn't a left-right thing. I'm sure the Republicans are looking at this and getting the same message, and would be just as happy to use the same tools.
With the assumption that Apple is a private company with those freedoms, what is the approbate response?
Any company that decides to stick its toe into content moderation has a job that is, IMO, completely impossible and will receive backlash no matter what they do. Moderating content in a manner they find acceptable is one thing, but moderating content in a way to make sure that everyone finds it acceptable is simply not possible and is only polarizing everyone.
I don't think social media was intended to become the new Town Hall, but here are, and private companies are shutting down discussions and discussion platforms. We need to shoot for federated social media that actually owned and ran by the user, not by a separate company. I don't trust any government with moderating speech, but I trust companies even less (they were not elected to).
I don't think social media was intended to become the new Town Hall, but here are, and private companies are shutting down discussions and discussion platforms. We need to shoot for federated social media that actually owned and ran by the user, not by a separate company. I don't trust any government with moderating speech, but I trust companies even less (they were not elected to).
>But the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations.
We should really fear the very near future in which it's so easy to assasinate a man by simply pushing a button and cut off all of his social relations.
We should really fear the very near future in which it's so easy to assasinate a man by simply pushing a button and cut off all of his social relations.
I'm pretty sure there is no button which could cut off all my social relations.
I find no fault with the social network bans, and I don't even mind the Google Play Store ban (given the ability to sideload apps, including alternate app stores, on Android), but totally banning an app from an OS like this does give me pause.
[deleted]
I predict 2021 is going to be the year of conservative media hammering on censorship, causing their audience to distrust the media even more than they do, and conservative politicians using it to score points with conservative voters.
Do you think politics is a sport where people score points? Bizzare
EDIT: not, you know, improving livelihoods or anything else important
[deleted]
I don't use Parler, but this is nuts.
AWS, Google, Apple, Twitter are private (sector) businesses, and it's fine for them to do what they want. That being said, there are two issues here.
One, is that even the staunchest free market advocates acknowledge that monopolies are constructs by which markets fail the public, and we designate trust busting as a necessary function of the state. This is yet another action in a series among many that demonstrates that not only are these companies beyond any reasonable threshold of what would historically constitute a monopoly, but that they repeatedly act in collusion with one another in service of specific objectives. These companies have the capability to effectively lock competitors out of even getting their footing. "If a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, what's wrong with this?" Well, Twitter is already an effective monopoly in its space, but Parler is created as a miniscule competitor. It has virtually no chance, but it carves out a space for itself. Well Apple and Google remove it from their marketplaces, and the apk is removed from major hosts. So now Parler needs to build its own smartphones, OSes, and marketplaces. Well now AWS says they won't host their servers, so Parler needs to build and maintain their own server infrastructure. What's next, credit cards refuse to process their transactions, banks refuse to serve them? You're okay with this?
Secondly, do we approve of the existing monopolies doing this? Over the last few months, militant leftists have caused an estimated 5 billion in damages, taken over police stations, burned down the Minneapolis police station, attempted to burn down the federal courthouse in Portland, set up two anarchist insurrection zones which resulted in multiple murders and rapes, as well as racially segregated spaces and speaking areas, taken down century old statues of Lincoln and Grant, among others, have beat multiple business owners to within inches of their lives, destroyed countless businesses, many of which have no insurance. But this is where the buck stops? A free speech platform that hosted some of the conversations that led to a single (completely unacceptable) act by a group? I observe a group of radical leftists on Facebook, that, in regards to the storming of the Capitol building, have said "do not question their tactics, just their motives." This is a group on Facebook that doesn't think there's a problem with storming the Capitol or threatening the lives of the Congress, just that they disagree with the motives. That's apparently the case for Facebook as well, as well as the rest of these platforms.
AWS, Google, Apple, Twitter are private (sector) businesses, and it's fine for them to do what they want. That being said, there are two issues here.
One, is that even the staunchest free market advocates acknowledge that monopolies are constructs by which markets fail the public, and we designate trust busting as a necessary function of the state. This is yet another action in a series among many that demonstrates that not only are these companies beyond any reasonable threshold of what would historically constitute a monopoly, but that they repeatedly act in collusion with one another in service of specific objectives. These companies have the capability to effectively lock competitors out of even getting their footing. "If a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, what's wrong with this?" Well, Twitter is already an effective monopoly in its space, but Parler is created as a miniscule competitor. It has virtually no chance, but it carves out a space for itself. Well Apple and Google remove it from their marketplaces, and the apk is removed from major hosts. So now Parler needs to build its own smartphones, OSes, and marketplaces. Well now AWS says they won't host their servers, so Parler needs to build and maintain their own server infrastructure. What's next, credit cards refuse to process their transactions, banks refuse to serve them? You're okay with this?
Secondly, do we approve of the existing monopolies doing this? Over the last few months, militant leftists have caused an estimated 5 billion in damages, taken over police stations, burned down the Minneapolis police station, attempted to burn down the federal courthouse in Portland, set up two anarchist insurrection zones which resulted in multiple murders and rapes, as well as racially segregated spaces and speaking areas, taken down century old statues of Lincoln and Grant, among others, have beat multiple business owners to within inches of their lives, destroyed countless businesses, many of which have no insurance. But this is where the buck stops? A free speech platform that hosted some of the conversations that led to a single (completely unacceptable) act by a group? I observe a group of radical leftists on Facebook, that, in regards to the storming of the Capitol building, have said "do not question their tactics, just their motives." This is a group on Facebook that doesn't think there's a problem with storming the Capitol or threatening the lives of the Congress, just that they disagree with the motives. That's apparently the case for Facebook as well, as well as the rest of these platforms.
There are quite a number of people on Parler promoting and quasi-coordinating literal assassinations.
This is a pretty good lesson on the parameters of 'free speech'.
If there is no moderation on a platform, people will use it to organize straight up murder.
So there 'must be a line' somewhere, and then it gets complicated from there.
(Edit: I don't mean necessarily a legal line on expression, rather, companies 'have to moderate' forums somehow.)
Also - a wrench in the logic - Twitter is still used by some 'very bad hombres' - Ayatollah Khomeini is still on Twitter and uses it to say some things considerably more outrageous and ostensibly violent than Trump ever has. So I feel that there's some hypocrisy here, Twitter could probably let go of him as well if they for their own reasoning believe that Trump has incited violence. I feel that we often use different standards for internal politics than we do for geopolitics (we often look the other way when people do stuff elsewhere) Twitter might want to reconsider.
This is a pretty good lesson on the parameters of 'free speech'.
If there is no moderation on a platform, people will use it to organize straight up murder.
So there 'must be a line' somewhere, and then it gets complicated from there.
(Edit: I don't mean necessarily a legal line on expression, rather, companies 'have to moderate' forums somehow.)
Also - a wrench in the logic - Twitter is still used by some 'very bad hombres' - Ayatollah Khomeini is still on Twitter and uses it to say some things considerably more outrageous and ostensibly violent than Trump ever has. So I feel that there's some hypocrisy here, Twitter could probably let go of him as well if they for their own reasoning believe that Trump has incited violence. I feel that we often use different standards for internal politics than we do for geopolitics (we often look the other way when people do stuff elsewhere) Twitter might want to reconsider.
Whatever your feelings about Parler, political content moderation at the cloud services level, by a monopoly company with very particular business interests, is a serious threat to free speech online.
Cyberpunk 2021 but instead of getting leg modifications to jump over buildings, you're stuck in your home wearing a surgical mask and only allowed to watch corporate approved news.
Likely dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25707959
Over 400 points, over 700 comments.
Over 400 points, over 700 comments.
I think that this is a really bad idea. I believe that this is selective enforcement because on Twitter there is a ton of incitement to violence. I think it's worse on Twitter because it happens all of the time, and Twitter seems fine with it when it's far left folks. During the George Floyd riots in Portland, at least a few Antifa groups were using Twitter to organize their "protests". If you think that Trump's tweets were incitement, then those tweets were just as bad or even worse. Those protests didn't result in any police/feds dying, but a ton of police/feds were injured, and a lot of antifa type people were trying to kill, they just weren't very good at it.
But in my view, I see this idea that people are being radicalized through social media (YouTube, Twitter, Facebook) will be the same as the video games are causing violence ideas. I think what we are going to find out in the future is that allowing people to vent their crazy on the internet was more likely to let people blow off steam and wind them down. The few people who do act violently and vent about it on places like Twitter, were people who were already prone to violence. Kind of like in the video game blame game when people who were violent, the news always said that they played violent video games. In that case, those people were already violent and liked violent video games. Even those people who are "radicalized" by social media are probably people who could be radicalized by watching cat videos.
Now that's not to say that some people who are on the fence might be radicalized by social media, but I think it's also possible that more people are being deradicalized by allowing them to see all the things, bad or good. Of course, illegal threats should still be removed, but if these social media sites came up with a set of rules and actually followed them even when they didn't like the person, I think that would also go a long way to calming things. Some people will still cry about getting punished unfairly, but I think it's more likely fewer people will agree when they claim they were being persecuted when the rules are followed to the letter.
The biggest worry I have is that all of these deplatforming actions are actually going to lead to violence as people feel like they no longer have any way to express themselves. I really fear that tensions are escalating and these companies are making worse, not better.
But in my view, I see this idea that people are being radicalized through social media (YouTube, Twitter, Facebook) will be the same as the video games are causing violence ideas. I think what we are going to find out in the future is that allowing people to vent their crazy on the internet was more likely to let people blow off steam and wind them down. The few people who do act violently and vent about it on places like Twitter, were people who were already prone to violence. Kind of like in the video game blame game when people who were violent, the news always said that they played violent video games. In that case, those people were already violent and liked violent video games. Even those people who are "radicalized" by social media are probably people who could be radicalized by watching cat videos.
Now that's not to say that some people who are on the fence might be radicalized by social media, but I think it's also possible that more people are being deradicalized by allowing them to see all the things, bad or good. Of course, illegal threats should still be removed, but if these social media sites came up with a set of rules and actually followed them even when they didn't like the person, I think that would also go a long way to calming things. Some people will still cry about getting punished unfairly, but I think it's more likely fewer people will agree when they claim they were being persecuted when the rules are followed to the letter.
The biggest worry I have is that all of these deplatforming actions are actually going to lead to violence as people feel like they no longer have any way to express themselves. I really fear that tensions are escalating and these companies are making worse, not better.
I don't much like the use of the term "de-platforming". It is too broad, and doesn't capture the nuances of this. The free internet is the only "platform" that you have any chance to control. It's not perfect, but it's the only one we have (there's also amateur radio). If you want a platform, get a co-located web server in a jurisdiction that won't unplug you due to your views.
I think It's interesting that noone here is talking about how important it is not to fall for vendor lockin. If Parler is using a lot of Amazon specific things they'll have a hard time migrating this fast. We need to use opensource and available technologies to run our software.
(I completely dismiss the political argument here to talk about the fact that we're at the mercy of some companies for our own existence)
(I completely dismiss the political argument here to talk about the fact that we're at the mercy of some companies for our own existence)
"The society that separates scholars from its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and it fighting by its fools. " Thucydides
[deleted]
No brainer. You do not appease fascists. Let them build their own server farms or fediverse and watch the world disconnect you from peering.
How does AWS know what's hosted on their VMs?
Likely someone out to get Parler taken down noticed that they were using S3 URLs or something, and complained to AWS.
Anyone know Parler’s tech stack? What do they use AWS for? Are they all serverless or primarily using S3 and RDS or maybe DynamoDB?
I was feeling nosey about this so looked at their open roles. Golang, postgres, cassandra, scylla, nodejs, vue, angular and wordpress all got a mention
They don’t use any of AWS’s services other than EC2 and bare metal, because they don’t want to be locked in.
Looking at the TOS of these companies, they are within their legal right to offer service or not. No shoes, no shirt, no service.
Allow Verizon and ATT to turn off the rebels phones, and we need ISP level filtering to stop the insurrections from communicating.
I think it's in the interest of the FBI and CIA to covertly run a service that caters to the extremists, so that they can monitor their activities. If they get driven underground, it will be harder to maintain tabs on them, but the create a platform that let's them talk among themselves, it seems as easy as shooting fish in a barrel!
Yes, it's called Facebook :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%...
I think this last four years have proven FBI and CIA cannot be trusted, and people will get called 'extremist' by the Left merely for having differing political views. I mean we just got done watching Trump get labeled a terrorist merely for having a political rally. The leftist mob has clearly lost their collective minds and are under some kind of mass delusion at this point.
We need more apps like https://quanta.wiki that allow not just Social Media, but secure E2E encrypted communications, and file sharing.
We need more apps like https://quanta.wiki that allow not just Social Media, but secure E2E encrypted communications, and file sharing.
I'm actually less anti-Trump than most. I voted for him in 2016, but didn't vote for him in 2020. I don't like most of his policies, but there are some of his policies that I do like. I liked Trump before he became president, I thought he was a hoot. So I understand his way of speaking and know that some journalists really like to twist what he says. He just doesn't have the discipline to say things presidentially and talks off script in his very loose way.
I do however think his behavior has been deplorable since the election loss, and he blatantly incited a riot. He crossed a line and he deserves to be punished.
I do however think his behavior has been deplorable since the election loss, and he blatantly incited a riot. He crossed a line and he deserves to be punished.
Actually what happened is the president tried to hold a rally, and because it turned violent, Democrat-controlled BigTech used that as an excuse to purge their political adversaries from social media and even shut down social media websites they don't like.
It's absolutely sickening to see Democrats willingly giving up their free speech rights, just because they're angry with one man. You can't just shut down entire segments of the telecommunications infrastructure as a way to wage your political battles. That's a childish abuse of power, and everyone who isn't outraged by it should be ashamed of themselves and frankly grow up.
It's absolutely sickening to see Democrats willingly giving up their free speech rights, just because they're angry with one man. You can't just shut down entire segments of the telecommunications infrastructure as a way to wage your political battles. That's a childish abuse of power, and everyone who isn't outraged by it should be ashamed of themselves and frankly grow up.
Trump's claims about a stolen election remind me of the Nazi's promotion of the Stolchdoß myth. Sometimes the free exercise of speech is a great danger.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth
> I mean we just got done watching Trump get labeled a terrorist merely for having a political rally.
I've been to political rallies. They don't typically involve storming government buildings and forcing elected officials to evacuate. If people are going to try to overthrow the government, it really ought to be for better reason than that a washed-up reality TV host can't accept the fact that he must settle for only getting one term as President of the United States.
I've been to political rallies. They don't typically involve storming government buildings and forcing elected officials to evacuate. If people are going to try to overthrow the government, it really ought to be for better reason than that a washed-up reality TV host can't accept the fact that he must settle for only getting one term as President of the United States.
If a politician who holds a rally is responsible for the behaviors of looters and arsonists and violence in said rally, then you can hold that opinion and be consistent as long as you held that opinion all 2020 long while our cities burned and literally caused people to flee to the countryside by the millions.
And on a totally separate point, the police let the demonstrators into the building knowing most of them love their country, and where there to genuinely protest, and they didn't even damage any of the million-dollar paintings on the walls, set fires, or assault people (only two crazies, which exist in any group)). If this had been BLM the building would've been burned down and you would be rationalizing why is was "a just cause"
And on a totally separate point, the police let the demonstrators into the building knowing most of them love their country, and where there to genuinely protest, and they didn't even damage any of the million-dollar paintings on the walls, set fires, or assault people (only two crazies, which exist in any group)). If this had been BLM the building would've been burned down and you would be rationalizing why is was "a just cause"
I'm not fully informed on what content triggered these decisions by Google and Apple but if people are worried about too much power concentrations then the right approach for Parler is to sue and see how the court system decides whether these decisions were legal. Assuming the society as a whole has faith in the judicial system.
I can't wait for ISPs to start censoring the type of content that you would find on Parler, not because I think they should or that it is a good thing but because of the schadenfreude. Republicans fought hard to kill network neutrality and having their faces eaten by its removal in such a short time would be worth it.
People are better off moving away from AWS anyway, which is expensive and proprietary: https://medium.com/@keithccurtis/why-the-dod-should-use-open...
2021 would be better, they said. things can only look up after 2020, they said...
it's starting to feel like someone is tightening the screws on the tech companies. that is, if one wants to provide a charitable explanation for their decisions this past year. it's pretty surreal to see tech sector's lockstep march.
it's starting to feel like someone is tightening the screws on the tech companies. that is, if one wants to provide a charitable explanation for their decisions this past year. it's pretty surreal to see tech sector's lockstep march.
A wild guess.
Globalized economy benefits the entire tech sector plus some parts of non-tech. It also hurts a number of businesses and a huge number of American workers. Trump is an anti-globalist, hence why he gets pummeled.
Globalized economy benefits the entire tech sector plus some parts of non-tech. It also hurts a number of businesses and a huge number of American workers. Trump is an anti-globalist, hence why he gets pummeled.
Or, maybe, it was the whole “trying to overturn an election” thing?
Did anyone here actually use Parler? I installed it, and as a new user the default experience is basically a Twitter clone, but with only prominent right wing celebrities like Sean Hannitty.
I didn’t see any hateful trending topics here. My personal opinion is that it seems Parler is getting somewhat screwed here.
Sure, maybe there was some hateful content somewhere, but it certainly wasn’t being promoted to new users. Every online site has people trolling and spewing hate, but Parler is a tiny site with minimal funding.
I get that people want a scapegoat, but I do not think this is constructive.
I didn’t see any hateful trending topics here. My personal opinion is that it seems Parler is getting somewhat screwed here.
Sure, maybe there was some hateful content somewhere, but it certainly wasn’t being promoted to new users. Every online site has people trolling and spewing hate, but Parler is a tiny site with minimal funding.
I get that people want a scapegoat, but I do not think this is constructive.
Sounds like you conducted a thorough investigation!
Parler is a 33-person company, according to LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/parlerllc/insights/). Although they punch far above their weight in publicity, they are a mere afterthought compared with Twitter when viewed in financial terms.
The AWS ban will most likely end this company. Anyone who pops up to replace Parler will eventually face the same scrutiny and fate. Ultimately, my personal opinion is that the Parler ban is a tremendously good thing for the world. The people who are subject to being radicalized by social media are less likely to become radicalized if they are not exposed to content. Removing Parler removes the content; this will reduce the radicalization.
If you think that the typical conspiracy theorist on Parler is capable of critical thinking, you're mistaken.
The AWS ban will most likely end this company. Anyone who pops up to replace Parler will eventually face the same scrutiny and fate. Ultimately, my personal opinion is that the Parler ban is a tremendously good thing for the world. The people who are subject to being radicalized by social media are less likely to become radicalized if they are not exposed to content. Removing Parler removes the content; this will reduce the radicalization.
If you think that the typical conspiracy theorist on Parler is capable of critical thinking, you're mistaken.
Finally "Fediverse" will now become a household word!
Applications like Mastodon, Pleroma, and the platform I'm developing myself (https://quanta.wiki) can now hopefully gain enough traction to replace the monopoly Social Media services.
Applications like Mastodon, Pleroma, and the platform I'm developing myself (https://quanta.wiki) can now hopefully gain enough traction to replace the monopoly Social Media services.
The fediverse needs to find a way to abstract identity and consumption from content hosting before it can properly take off, imo.
As it stands, when joining as a casual user with limited technical knowlesge, you have to guess at which fiefdom is the best for you to join, and hope that your moderators are mature, even-handed and that nobody on your server does anything to get you defederated.
If things on your instance do go south, transferring hosts as I understand it is a pain in the ass, because you have to download your data off the server (assuming your account is still accessible), and then contact everyone you interact with (assuming your instance wasn't blocked by theirs), and tell them where you're moving to. Then you sign up for the new instance, upload your data, set a flag on your account to indicate that it's a transfered identity (optional). Fingers crossed your new host is federated with everyone you want to interact with.
As it stands, when joining as a casual user with limited technical knowlesge, you have to guess at which fiefdom is the best for you to join, and hope that your moderators are mature, even-handed and that nobody on your server does anything to get you defederated.
If things on your instance do go south, transferring hosts as I understand it is a pain in the ass, because you have to download your data off the server (assuming your account is still accessible), and then contact everyone you interact with (assuming your instance wasn't blocked by theirs), and tell them where you're moving to. Then you sign up for the new instance, upload your data, set a flag on your account to indicate that it's a transfered identity (optional). Fingers crossed your new host is federated with everyone you want to interact with.
Very good summary of some of the weaknesses in the Fediverse. Federated systems are not as good as fully decentralized ones. Today I'm starting a new experiment on my own web platform called quanta.wiki (I'm a Java developer) to investigate how to make it fully decentralized where everyone at least (at first) holds a copy of their entire fiefdom. Once the 'fiefdom' is not able to be shut down by targeting it's DNS name (hosting service), we can have a social media infrastructure that cannot be censored at all, like a blockchain.
Once the platforms diversify a bit, DNS will become the next front.
You might be right. If ISPs start banning domain names, there'll have to be some kind of solution that's like BitTorrent or a blockchain.
This is why many in government are already coming after encryption itself, because they know ultimately without encryption there is no freedom left at all.
This is why many in government are already coming after encryption itself, because they know ultimately without encryption there is no freedom left at all.
To some degree I think this is what they (Parler) wanted, it creates press and attention for them. It's free advertising. Whether it be hosting your domain with GoDaddy or your servers with Amazon, you would have to be incompetent to not believe this would be a likely outcome.
Diversity in all but thought.
[deleted]
One angle for concern: this means only big, established companies with their own infrastructure will be able to stay up while hosting calls for violence. Anyone hosted in the cloud is now responsible for their own censorship, massively raising minimum cost for competition.
The engineers at Parler are going to feel the pain trying to get off of all those AWS services.
Big tech is doing everyone a favor right now with this censorship. It will get us faster to decentralized alternatives.
> John Gilmore, one of the founders of the EFF, once famously wrote, "The ‘net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
> John Gilmore, one of the founders of the EFF, once famously wrote, "The ‘net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
This creates a very dangerous precedent. Who is responsible for the published content then? Individuals or the whole platforms? It clearly shows that big tech has too much of power without any kind of overlook, procedures and right to appeal.
Also covered by MacRumors:
https://www.macrumors.com/2021/01/09/apple-suspends-parler-f...
https://www.macrumors.com/2021/01/09/apple-suspends-parler-f...
This made me go check out Parler and one thing I will say is that you can tell the algorithms are more raw/organic based on the experience. Twitter is so overly sculpted that it becomes rather dull and predictable, almost manipulative.
For anyone interested here is the Parlor CEOs “parlor tweet” about this:
Sunday (tomorrow) at midnight Amazon will be shutting off all of our servers in an attempt to completely remove free speech off the internet. There is the possibility Parler will be unavailable on the internet for up to a week as we rebuild from scratch. We prepared for events like this by never relying on amazons proprietary infrastructure and building bare metal products.
We will try our best to move to a new provider right now as we have many competing for our business, however Amazon, Google and Apple purposefully did this as a coordinated effort knowing our options would be limited and knowing this would inflict the most damage right as President Trump was banned from the tech companies.
This was a coordinated attack by the tech giants to kill competition in the market place. We were too successful too fast. You can expect the war on competition and free speech to continue, but don’t count us out.
#speakfreely https://parler.com/post/009ba435b68c46d4955e1cd7737fa27c
Sunday (tomorrow) at midnight Amazon will be shutting off all of our servers in an attempt to completely remove free speech off the internet. There is the possibility Parler will be unavailable on the internet for up to a week as we rebuild from scratch. We prepared for events like this by never relying on amazons proprietary infrastructure and building bare metal products.
We will try our best to move to a new provider right now as we have many competing for our business, however Amazon, Google and Apple purposefully did this as a coordinated effort knowing our options would be limited and knowing this would inflict the most damage right as President Trump was banned from the tech companies.
This was a coordinated attack by the tech giants to kill competition in the market place. We were too successful too fast. You can expect the war on competition and free speech to continue, but don’t count us out.
#speakfreely https://parler.com/post/009ba435b68c46d4955e1cd7737fa27c
[deleted]
An interesting excerpt from a recent Fox News interview with Parler's Chief Policy Officer[1]:
Just watching a Fox News interview with the Parler Chief Policy Officer and she said "People seem to want [tech companies] to 'moderate' as they call it, content on these platforms but that would require 24/7 surveillance and I don't think that is consistent with the principles of America"
For context, she seemed quite non-technical but I thought it was an interesting insight into how systems with good intentions can be miscontrued (willingly or accidentally).
The chyron ironically says "Parler: We will not surveil innocent people" at one point. I guess you'd need to rely on user reports to claim that but you're definitely going to end up with false reports for sure.
On a side note, how could Parler ever operate if Trump pulled Section 230? Wouldn't they instantly be considered culpable (as would every other company) for their users content? It seems like a lose-lose threat.
[1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MNIxatQ0fKU
Just watching a Fox News interview with the Parler Chief Policy Officer and she said "People seem to want [tech companies] to 'moderate' as they call it, content on these platforms but that would require 24/7 surveillance and I don't think that is consistent with the principles of America"
For context, she seemed quite non-technical but I thought it was an interesting insight into how systems with good intentions can be miscontrued (willingly or accidentally).
The chyron ironically says "Parler: We will not surveil innocent people" at one point. I guess you'd need to rely on user reports to claim that but you're definitely going to end up with false reports for sure.
On a side note, how could Parler ever operate if Trump pulled Section 230? Wouldn't they instantly be considered culpable (as would every other company) for their users content? It seems like a lose-lose threat.
[1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MNIxatQ0fKU
Endless quests to crush marginalized people does not work in the long run and is exhausting. Although large tech companies are filled with hate and rage now, efforts to silence those who have little voice takes ongoing effort.
Make a web app that works well on mobile browser and escape the App Store police.
Logically, if Parler should be removed from the app store, Safari should also refuse to connect to it. Either way, it's Apple providing your access.
In the past that has not happened, the reason open web wins is because of freedom.
you're going to see companies go back to bare metal and fiber where they peer their network with the internet and existence isn't determined by the outrage of the day and the whims of a platform provider.
the angry mob will then go after the networks doing the peering. it's chilling to me the speed at which the censorship is happening and the speed at which the 'outrage' shifts.
Then they switch to microwave links and/or satellite. As those are not really possible to stop, that's the moment this war goes hot.
I don't think this worries 99% of AWS customers in the least. We rely on AWS at work; there isn't going to be a meeting Monday about potentially moving off AWS.
[deleted]
This is political and that's fine.
Just remember, if your side is winning doesn't mean it won't happen in the other direction for exactly the same political reasons.
Anyways, I don't care either way about the American clown show.
Just remember, if your side is winning doesn't mean it won't happen in the other direction for exactly the same political reasons.
Anyways, I don't care either way about the American clown show.
I do find it interesting that some of those who think that medical professional should have a right to refuse lifesaving medial care to people for "moral reasons" are also up in arms about this happening.
Free speech is a lot harder to defend when you disagree with what's said. It's relinquished by moralistic rationalizations and righteous condemnations... Be careful what you wish for.
Unless they had contingency plans Parler is dead. There's no realistic way to move a site like that in 7 days. ESPECIALLY if they're using all the vendor lock-in AWS features.
Unless they had a contingency plan in place Parler is dead. There's no way a site that big could be moved in 7 days. ESPECIALLY if they used the vendor lock-in features of AWS.
Their CEO said:
"There is the possibility Parler will be unavailable on the internet for up to a week as we rebuild from scratch. We prepared for events like this by never relying on amazons proprietary infrastructure and building bare metal products"
So he explicitly says they didn't use the vendor lock-in features, but the "rebuild from scratch" comment sort of contradicts that.
"There is the possibility Parler will be unavailable on the internet for up to a week as we rebuild from scratch. We prepared for events like this by never relying on amazons proprietary infrastructure and building bare metal products"
So he explicitly says they didn't use the vendor lock-in features, but the "rebuild from scratch" comment sort of contradicts that.
They can do it, it is not hard to replace, for instance RDS with equivalent databases, SQS with something else. The hard part is they will have to find a sane ISP or non far-left marxist company to host or come up with capital for physical hardware and set up colocation or a data center.
I heard they are about to get banned from AWS. Rumor is that Amazon has also demanded full moderation. I know they are getting pressure from Amazon employees and AWS customers.
Link? That would be a major development.
Twitter rumors. Here’s an article from a google news.
Edit it’s now official: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
Edit it’s now official: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
Silencing other side means you claim power over them, put them below you. And if you believe that's way away from polarization, and violence - I have very bad news for you.
[deleted]
I think this should incentivize people to build their own backend and definitely move off big tech cloud. I know it’s more expensive but it was routine in 90s and 00s
Should the power company turn off the lights in their office?
[deleted]
Very bad business move for AWS. Now every company has to seriously consider hosting on multiple clouds as AWS kicking them off becomes an existential risk.
Dupe?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25707959 (680 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25707959 (680 comments)
The network interprets fash as noise and filters it out.
If you are a hardliner about free speech, you are fash. If you are conservative, you are fash-proximate.
If you are a hardliner about free speech, you are fash. If you are conservative, you are fash-proximate.
This is only the beginning. If you think these people are just going to go quietly into the night, I think you will be horribly surprised.
I don’t think anyone thinks they are going quietly into the night (that I’ve heard at least).
At the time of its removal Parler already rose to the #1 spot. Will this move by Apple and Google backfire due to the Streisand Effect?
The fastest way to get booted or "moderated" on Parler is to post material critical of Trump or the GOP, there's numerous people posting screenshot/evidence of their bans on Twitter, so it's quite clear Parler actually isn't truly about free speech, and does have the capability to moderate content.
https://happymag.tv/parler-free-speech-social-media-banning-...
This means that all of the high minded talk of freedom of speech by the founder is really just a charade, and Parler is really just a right-wing social network.
https://happymag.tv/parler-free-speech-social-media-banning-...
This means that all of the high minded talk of freedom of speech by the founder is really just a charade, and Parler is really just a right-wing social network.
Hell yes.
The people being cut-off are literally outta their minds. Anyone thinking it's unfair is also outta their minds... or thinking it's about censorship. Nah, it's about not-supporting a coup of the USA and murderous assholes.
In the USA, of all places, we don't have to do shit we don't want to do (except pay taxes). No one wants to share anything with fucking Nazis. These insurrectionists are fighting against the very fabric that gives them the things they want.
They have completely disconnected from reality if they expect the benefits of a diverse intellectually rich society, but want that society eradicated, locked up, and enslaved. Do you really think we'd have the fucking internet if the nazis had won? ROFLCOPTR. Fucking ROFLCOPTRs. They're attempting to overthrow the USA's election results-- they're traitors.
I'd even be against using the word "traitor" if they weren't nazi-white-supremacist fuckheads. I'm using it because they're traitors, not just to democracy, but to humanity. They seek the destruction and enslavement of others. This is not a fucking joke. FACT: Hitler was laughed at AND staged a failed coup; which went unpunished (he was having guests and was free to roam the prison) before the camps and WWII. I can't even make this shit up. It's honestly like Trump is reading Hitler's bio for tips on how to get ahead... but back to the point.
If someone wants to murder me, enslave me, deeply believes I am inherently unequal, and that I am not even human; no, I will not help them. Is that strange? I have a pretty strong feeling it's not.
So then no one, fucking no one, should be surprised that the PEOPLE who built AWS, Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, reddit et. al do not want to empower those that want to destroy, enslave, and torture them.
To be clear, this could not be less about censorship. If anything, it's a testament to free speech this shit went on for as long as it did. I'd even be more pissed about it going on for as long as it did, but better late than never, if we all weren't balls deep triaging an attempted coup of the USA.
The people being cut-off are literally outta their minds. Anyone thinking it's unfair is also outta their minds... or thinking it's about censorship. Nah, it's about not-supporting a coup of the USA and murderous assholes.
In the USA, of all places, we don't have to do shit we don't want to do (except pay taxes). No one wants to share anything with fucking Nazis. These insurrectionists are fighting against the very fabric that gives them the things they want.
They have completely disconnected from reality if they expect the benefits of a diverse intellectually rich society, but want that society eradicated, locked up, and enslaved. Do you really think we'd have the fucking internet if the nazis had won? ROFLCOPTR. Fucking ROFLCOPTRs. They're attempting to overthrow the USA's election results-- they're traitors.
I'd even be against using the word "traitor" if they weren't nazi-white-supremacist fuckheads. I'm using it because they're traitors, not just to democracy, but to humanity. They seek the destruction and enslavement of others. This is not a fucking joke. FACT: Hitler was laughed at AND staged a failed coup; which went unpunished (he was having guests and was free to roam the prison) before the camps and WWII. I can't even make this shit up. It's honestly like Trump is reading Hitler's bio for tips on how to get ahead... but back to the point.
If someone wants to murder me, enslave me, deeply believes I am inherently unequal, and that I am not even human; no, I will not help them. Is that strange? I have a pretty strong feeling it's not.
So then no one, fucking no one, should be surprised that the PEOPLE who built AWS, Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, reddit et. al do not want to empower those that want to destroy, enslave, and torture them.
To be clear, this could not be less about censorship. If anything, it's a testament to free speech this shit went on for as long as it did. I'd even be more pissed about it going on for as long as it did, but better late than never, if we all weren't balls deep triaging an attempted coup of the USA.
Can we now also expect oil companies (supposedly republican controlled) to stop supplying oil to companies stifling free speech?
[deleted]
Side stepping the free speech issue, they should have let Parler die on its own accord because it’s such a garbage app.
The fact that Parler did not anticipate this is crazy. How do you decide to build Parler and than tie yourself to AWS?
As pointed out by fang's pinned comment. Sites, companies and services have rules of engagement which if broken even in the flimsiest sense (e.g snark, I've been snarky here and have been rightfully warned). Break those rules of engagement and expect the consequences. I think for those who have issues with this latest outcasting of Parker by the big three, you will have to encourage your government to treat them as utilities and support anti trust cases against them. I predict that suggestion to clash with the libertarian nature of those concerned.
« The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism »
Do not search for it. Do not mention it or allude to it
the folks you don't want talking are still talking, they're just doing it where you can't see it, any more.
your plan to ban them off all of the places where you're paying attention has been clear to them for years, and as much as you like to pretend your political enemies are stupid, they are not.
your plan to ban them off all of the places where you're paying attention has been clear to them for years, and as much as you like to pretend your political enemies are stupid, they are not.
There was an essay in N+1 years ago called Googlebang, the thesis being that the proliferation of pornography on the Web was in no small part due to the sexual liberty proliferate in the San Francisco Bay Area that continues to this day. That was the seed that the abundant network effects spread far and wide.
I think we can attribute the same source to the phenomenon of reactionary politics being relegated to the Dark Web. It's not that social media companies silence right-wingers per se: right-wingers don't found social media companies.
I think we can attribute the same source to the phenomenon of reactionary politics being relegated to the Dark Web. It's not that social media companies silence right-wingers per se: right-wingers don't found social media companies.
The AWS censorship should be concerning for anyone who uses their services.
It's now clear that any business you have can be destroyed by a small, but vocal, group of people who don't like it for whatever reason.
What does this 'cut off' look like?
Do AWS make your site inaccessible to the public, but still give you access to your data?
Do they waive the data egress fees so that you can pull everything down locally?
What does this 'cut off' look like?
Do AWS make your site inaccessible to the public, but still give you access to your data?
Do they waive the data egress fees so that you can pull everything down locally?
This is more like adding fuel to the fire than fighting it. As a European I dont see how this will help.
I'm in the U.K. and I need some help understanding what is happening here. I'm a big left winger too, (but British socialism respects the sovereignty of parliament. Or it used to). Anyway, why can I not install this app now? I checked and it is not in the U.K. play store. Your president did something bad, and now I am not allowed some app? And the president and his supporters have been wiped from social media? I can't even go and see what the did to cause this?
They pretty much have to do this, due to risk from 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection.
Oracle should scoop them up, lot of AWS customers have moved to OCI which is also cheaper in cost.
I'm sure they are going through the same calculus. Leftists at all tech companies have been stacking their management with left authoritarian sympathizers for years, most from overseas. However, LPOD is probably heavily right leaning, so who knows what faction they will be on. (LPOD = larry ellison, prince of darkness)
Possibly. He probably doesn't want calls for violence on his platform either, though.
What about calls for imprisoning people? That off limits? Because there are thousands and thousands of posts out there on leftists boards where leftists with delusions of grandeur are talking about who they are going to imprison on the right. That constitutes violence.
Since imprisoning people requires a trial by jury, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it isn’t something that random people on the internet can take into their own hands. This certainly seems like much less of a problem.
I mean they can use safari to access the web app. Might be harder to get push notifications but...
I used to feel pretty strongly about the CCP banning Twitter, Facebook and Google. Not any more.
Problem is: what constitutes acceptable moderation?
Much of the “cancelling” going on now is strained deliberate misinterpretation of intentions/statements of opponents, a power play for a political purge.
Problem is: how to specify what moderation is acceptable for Apple et al, without making it abundantly clear how biased/bigoted/unfair the demands are?
Much of the “cancelling” going on now is strained deliberate misinterpretation of intentions/statements of opponents, a power play for a political purge.
Problem is: how to specify what moderation is acceptable for Apple et al, without making it abundantly clear how biased/bigoted/unfair the demands are?
> Much of the “cancelling” going on now is strained deliberate misinterpretation of intentions/statements of opponents, a power play for a political purge.
Citation needed. Alternatively, did you forget to add "in my opinion" somewhere in that sentence?
Citation needed. Alternatively, did you forget to add "in my opinion" somewhere in that sentence?
Can Parler still be installed from a direct download or is this at the O.S. level?
For iOS, theoretically possible via re-signing a IPA and sideloading via a paid iOS developer account.
Otherwise iOS won't run unsigned code without a jailbreak.
Otherwise iOS won't run unsigned code without a jailbreak.
You got an .ipa? Cannot find one anywhere.
Android?
I made some comments earlier, and after receiving some noxious pushback I paused for reflection. Now I'm feeling very uneasy about this (not yet posting from a throwaway, heheh).
It is my feeling the combined action to de-platform Trump including de-platforming Parler is foolish and very likely to escalate the tensions, not defuse them, e.g. increase the likelihood of Bad Things Happening That I Won't Explicitly Detail Because I Don't Want To Be De-Platformed For Writing About Stuff That Should Perfectly Obvious To People That Pay Attention To History.
Millions of people were moving onto Parler because TheDonald and a number of well known commentators told them to go there to avoid censorship. Subsequent to shutting Trump out of public social media over what could understandably be construed as a bogus rationale of censorship (especially if one believes the elections were fraudulent), BigTechBogeyPersons collude to shut everyone out of Trump's replacement platform, (and potentially any future option). That's what literally millions of American people perceive. My messaging is buzzing with non-tech people who are afraid the apocalypse is now and asking me what to do, what's going to happen, etc. People are asking me what to do about it!
The blowback potential is off the charts. The chilling effect is over the top. There's plenty of American people personally affected. They are frightened and/or outraged by this outcome. Plenty of people who immigrated to the US from non-free countries have drawn conclusions from this that are quite different from the virtuous and self-righteous moralizing I see commonly proposed here on HN and by "acceptable" social media sources.
The commenter who suggested this would be perceived as a "casus belli" probably hit the nail on the head.
It is my feeling the combined action to de-platform Trump including de-platforming Parler is foolish and very likely to escalate the tensions, not defuse them, e.g. increase the likelihood of Bad Things Happening That I Won't Explicitly Detail Because I Don't Want To Be De-Platformed For Writing About Stuff That Should Perfectly Obvious To People That Pay Attention To History.
Millions of people were moving onto Parler because TheDonald and a number of well known commentators told them to go there to avoid censorship. Subsequent to shutting Trump out of public social media over what could understandably be construed as a bogus rationale of censorship (especially if one believes the elections were fraudulent), BigTechBogeyPersons collude to shut everyone out of Trump's replacement platform, (and potentially any future option). That's what literally millions of American people perceive. My messaging is buzzing with non-tech people who are afraid the apocalypse is now and asking me what to do, what's going to happen, etc. People are asking me what to do about it!
The blowback potential is off the charts. The chilling effect is over the top. There's plenty of American people personally affected. They are frightened and/or outraged by this outcome. Plenty of people who immigrated to the US from non-free countries have drawn conclusions from this that are quite different from the virtuous and self-righteous moralizing I see commonly proposed here on HN and by "acceptable" social media sources.
The commenter who suggested this would be perceived as a "casus belli" probably hit the nail on the head.
Statement by John Matze
"Sunday (tomorrow) at midnight Amazon will be shutting off all of our servers in an attempt to completely remove free speech off the internet. There is the possibility Parler will be unavailable on the internet for up to a week as we rebuild from scratch. We prepared for events like this by never relying on amazons proprietary infrastructure and building bare metal products.
We will try our best to move to a new provider right now as we have many competing for our business, however Amazon, Google and Apple purposefully did this as a coordinated effort knowing our options would be limited and knowing this would inflict the most damage right as President Trump was banned from the tech companies.
This was a coordinated attack by the tech giants to kill competition in the market place. We were too successful too fast. You can expect the war on competition and free speech to continue, but don’t count us out."
https://www.parler.com/profile/John/posts
"Sunday (tomorrow) at midnight Amazon will be shutting off all of our servers in an attempt to completely remove free speech off the internet. There is the possibility Parler will be unavailable on the internet for up to a week as we rebuild from scratch. We prepared for events like this by never relying on amazons proprietary infrastructure and building bare metal products.
We will try our best to move to a new provider right now as we have many competing for our business, however Amazon, Google and Apple purposefully did this as a coordinated effort knowing our options would be limited and knowing this would inflict the most damage right as President Trump was banned from the tech companies.
This was a coordinated attack by the tech giants to kill competition in the market place. We were too successful too fast. You can expect the war on competition and free speech to continue, but don’t count us out."
https://www.parler.com/profile/John/posts
TIL Parler was all free speech.
When did they co-opt HN? ;)
When did they co-opt HN? ;)
The real dunk will be if AWS acts. They’ve acted before against Gab properties.
They already have - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
Yep, I just saw that. If the CEO had kept his trap shut they had a chance. He elected to bleet publicly.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Don’t foment violent insurrection against the us government next time, I guess
[deleted]
Walled gardens working as planned! "Cloud" as well! Enjoy!
It looks like someone actually reads emails to [email protected].
As someone who has lived in both fascist regimes (South Korea in the 1970s and 1980s) and Communist ones (off and on in China during that past two decades), I have witnessed close at hand supposedly private businesses eager to curry favor with the government by silencing their political opponents. Could it just be that the tech titans sense a means of fending off imminent antitrust action by the DoJ, through tacitly coordinated purges of conservative platforms? Surely not!
On a related note, as a longtime defender of free speech, I am nauseated at the visage of tech mavens here rhetorically frothing at the mouth to silence those with whom they disagree. This has been a slippery slope indeed, starting with Alex Jones and now extending to platforms used by 10s of millions of people, whose views are now deemed heretical.
On a related note, as a longtime defender of free speech, I am nauseated at the visage of tech mavens here rhetorically frothing at the mouth to silence those with whom they disagree. This has been a slippery slope indeed, starting with Alex Jones and now extending to platforms used by 10s of millions of people, whose views are now deemed heretical.
I can't help but wonder if the opposite isn't at play here. It's reasonable that these companies have wanted to dissociate with Parler or other specific extremist groups but were afraid of political retribution from Mr. Trump. In your experience, did those same private businesses curry favor with governments by giving their allies preferential treatment?
As 'slippery slope' as this all feels, I'd personally rather the government not get involved in these private business dealings unless they feel there is a monopoly/oligopoly at foot.
As 'slippery slope' as this all feels, I'd personally rather the government not get involved in these private business dealings unless they feel there is a monopoly/oligopoly at foot.
Then in that case they will surely be desirous of de-platforming the toxic content on Twitter, which advocates, among other things, the destruction of Israel By Iran and the internment of Uyghurs in Sinjiang. Who would want their corporate identity sullied by such content?
As for the slippery slope, in my opinion we're headed with accelerating pace toward Kotkin's Neo-feudalism. The suppression of dissent is one important piece of the process.
https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Neo-Feudalism-Warning-Global-M...
As for the slippery slope, in my opinion we're headed with accelerating pace toward Kotkin's Neo-feudalism. The suppression of dissent is one important piece of the process.
https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Neo-Feudalism-Warning-Global-M...
Parler still works in Safari...until AWS turns them off.
Parler totally should migrate to Alibaba Cloud.
How is this not collusion? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/collusion.asp
If you’re going to be a hardcore free speech site you should be on a hardcore free speech hosting service like prq.se. Anything else is just asking for hassle with Hosters refusing to host the crap.
Given that there have been BLM protests for months, do we actually have reason to believe that if Trump had won the extreme left would not have been talking about performing similar disruptive actions? How then would these companies have reacted?
Today the infrastructure for serving information over the internet is privately owned, and liberals say that it’s ok for private companies to censor people on their platforms, and they are right. Tomorrow, the internet will be a public utility, the infrastructure will be publicly owned and conveying information over the internet will be universally appreciated as the way that communication between people is done — to be cut off from it would be like having your tongue cut out. The only difference between today and tomorrow is a few strokes of legislative pens — nothing, basically. The argument that this is ok because it’s private companies is a cop out.
Internet infrastructure was actually built with a lot of public money and the internet is already accepted as the way that communication between people is done. You’re a little late with this comment, I’m afraid.
If the internet were publicly owned, wouldn’t it actually be _considerably harder_ to cut someone off from it because of the government’s responsibility to ensure equitable access to utilities (like you propose the internet will become)?
If the internet were publicly owned, wouldn’t it actually be _considerably harder_ to cut someone off from it because of the government’s responsibility to ensure equitable access to utilities (like you propose the internet will become)?
I think you misread my comment.
I think it is for everyone's good that they are getting censored. However, they should have known this was going to happen and take steps to make it cloud agnostic. It is just obvious.
[deleted]
It's great to have an Amazon card... :-)
It's great to have an Amazon card ...
I have no idea why this is flagged as dupe
There is a massive business opportunity here.
Funny enough Gab is probably best positioned to take advantage of it. It has been deplatformed years ago and survived by basically building whole stack from scratch.
There were many many many millions of American citizens who voted from Trump. None of this changing any minds. At this point for purposes of political speech Twitter, FB, Amazon have decided to abandon almost half of US market. If you think that chunk of the market will remain underserved you deluding yourself.
Funny enough Gab is probably best positioned to take advantage of it. It has been deplatformed years ago and survived by basically building whole stack from scratch.
There were many many many millions of American citizens who voted from Trump. None of this changing any minds. At this point for purposes of political speech Twitter, FB, Amazon have decided to abandon almost half of US market. If you think that chunk of the market will remain underserved you deluding yourself.
This is a sad day for free speech.
I visited thedonald.win and Parler. It was a bit scary. There were many many mentions of killing Mike Pence & Nancy pelosi.
We ought to remember that in the Capitol they found hidden IED pipe bombs. They were not afraid to kill public figures as was the intent online.
The sweeping reactions is because what was said online actually panned out. If this was predominantly Muslim or black community instead of Trump supporters, it would have been a much bigger uproar.
We ought to remember that in the Capitol they found hidden IED pipe bombs. They were not afraid to kill public figures as was the intent online.
The sweeping reactions is because what was said online actually panned out. If this was predominantly Muslim or black community instead of Trump supporters, it would have been a much bigger uproar.
I want to see this also as a geopolitical move. We see online platforms growing, and for US products the natural growth is the following: US, Europe and Australia, then Asia, Africa and Latinamerica. What is missing? China the crown jewel. Is this move anti-Trump a way to set a precedent that Big Tech is pro China. Let's don't forget the ties of Apple and Facebook there and the need to access that market.
No shoes, no shirt, no service.
It’s worth it to quickly check out the content on Parker, gab, and similar sites/apps. Gab.com has 3 Qanon posts on their front page right now.
The problem is that "free speech" is too often conflated with "being able to say whatever the hell I want, however horrific it is".
In my humble opinion, a democracy is one in which free speech is championed, but ultimately this freedom is trumped (genuinely no pun intended...) by the ability of the individual or group to actually rationally talk, accept difference and rationalise their point of view.
My liberty to say "the earth is flat" or "Covid19 doesn't exist" is not "free speech" but lunacy. I have zero rational evidence to support these positions, and I'd be unable in the face of serious scrutiny to even try to support these.
Science is a great example of a method which actually works. The whole, entire point of the scientific method is that it is based around being right until it is proved wrong. Every single serious academic ever knows this: they publish a paper with a theory, and they pretty much literally ask their community to shoot it down. Sometimes the theories remain for decades, sometimes they're found to be wrong immediately, and then a new paper and theory is published which sets out the latest position, there again until it is proved wrong.
The interesting thing in almost all the examples being pored over right now - Twitter and Trump, Parler, Voat - is that the individuals concerned are actually all involved in an echo chamber which self-supports. They are completely unable to rationalise, and if you ever tried jumping onto any of these streams or platforms and providing an alternative point of view then you'll see exactly what I mean by this - you're almost immediately flamed out of the room. The irony here - that these "free speech" platforms are the least able to support any kind of dissenting opinion - is intense.
Ultimately, the person claiming the primacy of "free speech" needs to accept that this freedom has a price: they need to be able to defend their position, and accept that others have alternative positions, and accept that even if their position is "true" now, it may not be "true" when further evidence emerges. This is rarely, I would suggest never, the case in the examples provided here.
In terms of this specific thread: I don't see Parler as a "platform of free speech". I see it as "a self-supporting echo chamber of individuals who are completely against free speech".
In my humble opinion, a democracy is one in which free speech is championed, but ultimately this freedom is trumped (genuinely no pun intended...) by the ability of the individual or group to actually rationally talk, accept difference and rationalise their point of view.
My liberty to say "the earth is flat" or "Covid19 doesn't exist" is not "free speech" but lunacy. I have zero rational evidence to support these positions, and I'd be unable in the face of serious scrutiny to even try to support these.
Science is a great example of a method which actually works. The whole, entire point of the scientific method is that it is based around being right until it is proved wrong. Every single serious academic ever knows this: they publish a paper with a theory, and they pretty much literally ask their community to shoot it down. Sometimes the theories remain for decades, sometimes they're found to be wrong immediately, and then a new paper and theory is published which sets out the latest position, there again until it is proved wrong.
The interesting thing in almost all the examples being pored over right now - Twitter and Trump, Parler, Voat - is that the individuals concerned are actually all involved in an echo chamber which self-supports. They are completely unable to rationalise, and if you ever tried jumping onto any of these streams or platforms and providing an alternative point of view then you'll see exactly what I mean by this - you're almost immediately flamed out of the room. The irony here - that these "free speech" platforms are the least able to support any kind of dissenting opinion - is intense.
Ultimately, the person claiming the primacy of "free speech" needs to accept that this freedom has a price: they need to be able to defend their position, and accept that others have alternative positions, and accept that even if their position is "true" now, it may not be "true" when further evidence emerges. This is rarely, I would suggest never, the case in the examples provided here.
In terms of this specific thread: I don't see Parler as a "platform of free speech". I see it as "a self-supporting echo chamber of individuals who are completely against free speech".
Good.
People debating where is the line... they crossed it when they created the site, they knew what they were doing.
People debating where is the line... they crossed it when they created the site, they knew what they were doing.
I do not support this action. Public safety concerns should route through law enforcement, not AWS.
They do. But that doesn't mean Amazon is obliged to do business with any particular group if they decide it's not in their best interests. Freedom of association is a right.
What about phone companies then? Should a phone company be able to disconnect service of customers because of perfectly legal political speech? The phone companies are "free" to associate right?
What everyone fails to seem to realize is that once you are a public pipe (phone, internet, etc.) for millions of Americans to communicate over there should be laws that stops you from being able to be a gatekeeper for speech just because you own the hardware. In order to be allowed to remain in operation you should be required to certify that you do not censor.
What everyone fails to seem to realize is that once you are a public pipe (phone, internet, etc.) for millions of Americans to communicate over there should be laws that stops you from being able to be a gatekeeper for speech just because you own the hardware. In order to be allowed to remain in operation you should be required to certify that you do not censor.
It's not clear that the speech in question is perfectly legal. Parler is being cut off because of an inability to prevent the organization of crimes on their platform.
But no, it's not clear to me that there should be laws like that. Why should a phone company be obliged to do business with the American Nazi Party? A law like that might have made sense back when a) phone companies were monopolies, and b) the telephone network was the only way for people to get in touch. But neither is true now.
There are plenty of competitors to AWS. Why should the government take away the freedom of association of hosting businesses?
But no, it's not clear to me that there should be laws like that. Why should a phone company be obliged to do business with the American Nazi Party? A law like that might have made sense back when a) phone companies were monopolies, and b) the telephone network was the only way for people to get in touch. But neither is true now.
There are plenty of competitors to AWS. Why should the government take away the freedom of association of hosting businesses?
Well I decided yesterday to convert my own social media platform (quanta.wiki) to fully decentralized where each user runs the full system, like a blockchains. Then people can communicate as long as the internet is kept running.
People like you aren't going to admit there's a problem until your own phone, power, or banking account is cut off. People on the left are happily giving up their rights and freedoms because they think the government won't come after them too some day, but if you understand history, human nature, and power, you should realize that's quite an ignorant stance.
People like you aren't going to admit there's a problem until your own phone, power, or banking account is cut off. People on the left are happily giving up their rights and freedoms because they think the government won't come after them too some day, but if you understand history, human nature, and power, you should realize that's quite an ignorant stance.
You're the one advocating taking away rights, bub. I'm the one saying that as a general rule, both people and their businesses have the right to free speech and free association. If you're all that concerned about government power, then why are you advocating to increase government power?
I think stopping AT&T (or Twitter, which is merely the more modern form of telecommunications) from censoring the public provides greater freedoms to the society at large without taking rights away from anyone.
The hypocrisy on the left is truly stunning because you know if BigTech was mainly republicans censoring democrats, the dems would suddenly be able to recognize the "freedom" issue quite easily.
The hypocrisy on the left is truly stunning because you know if BigTech was mainly republicans censoring democrats, the dems would suddenly be able to recognize the "freedom" issue quite easily.
Twitter, etc, right now has freedom of association and you'd like to take that away. At least be honest. And it's ludicrous to say that Twitter is the modern AT&T, which had a national monopoly on real-time person-to-person communication.
I can't take responsibility for "the left", but what I'd be doing is looking toward alternatives. Which I expect would work just fine for the left, which has always tended toward decentralization.
I can't take responsibility for "the left", but what I'd be doing is looking toward alternatives. Which I expect would work just fine for the left, which has always tended toward decentralization.
Even if we can't agree on whether monopolies should be allowed to censor [legal] public speech, we can probably agree that decentralization and federation (like some kind of social media blockchain) is the best solution.
...because there's no way any gov't can ever determine if some company is shadow-banning and manipulating feeds of the people they don't like, and if I can even get you to admit bigger government is almost always the worst solution to any problem then I've even made progress on that front as well.
...because there's no way any gov't can ever determine if some company is shadow-banning and manipulating feeds of the people they don't like, and if I can even get you to admit bigger government is almost always the worst solution to any problem then I've even made progress on that front as well.
Twitter is not a monopoly. You are the person advocating increased government intervention in social media, not me. And I definitely don't agree that adding blockchain snake oil is the best solution to any problem.
If you think BigTech companies (providing email, messaging, etc) should get to censor at their whim, I do wonder if you'd afford them the same level of discrimination if they were right-leaning rather than leftist.
Good thing I don't think that, then.
Amazon can freely choose to do business with whomever they choose to. They have no legal carrier responsibility to host hate speech with violent calls to action if they choose not to do so.
I am aware of that. I do not believe this action is right. I do not support it.
Then feel free to discontinue business with Amazon.
We're nearly at the point where "Feel free to discontinue business with Amazon" makes about as much practical sense as "Feel free to grow your own food." Makes a great quip in social media but is completely unrealistic.
The reason we have government is to solve these kinds of disputes and force businesses to behave. Of course, sadly, nowadays government doesn't act fairly, and will always come down on the side of their political 'tribesmen' rather than faithfully and impartially executing the law.
The reason we have government is to solve these kinds of disputes and force businesses to behave. Of course, sadly, nowadays government doesn't act fairly, and will always come down on the side of their political 'tribesmen' rather than faithfully and impartially executing the law.
That’s my goal this evening.
[deleted]
Better late than never
Are all of the people here who are saying that parler is full of all sorts of bad things actually on the website, or are you just sortof assuming that?
I went to go look at the site, and it requires me to sign in to do anything, and that requires a phone number. I don't want to give them my phone number.
Have you guys all seriously gone and signed up for accounts, given these people your phone number, and actually gone looking around?
I have family members who use this website. They're not neo nazis who are planning political violence, and I know for a fact that they would be mortified to know of somebody who fit that description in their social group. They're your standard issue Irish Catholics from northern Minnesota who heard that conservatives weren't allowed on twitter anymore, so they went and signed up for parler accounts (a petty revolution, but there isn't a lot to do in N. Minnesota in January except ice fish and snowmobile).
I went to go look at the site, and it requires me to sign in to do anything, and that requires a phone number. I don't want to give them my phone number.
Have you guys all seriously gone and signed up for accounts, given these people your phone number, and actually gone looking around?
I have family members who use this website. They're not neo nazis who are planning political violence, and I know for a fact that they would be mortified to know of somebody who fit that description in their social group. They're your standard issue Irish Catholics from northern Minnesota who heard that conservatives weren't allowed on twitter anymore, so they went and signed up for parler accounts (a petty revolution, but there isn't a lot to do in N. Minnesota in January except ice fish and snowmobile).
Screenshot examples aren't hard to come by. 30 seconds of searching Twitter:
https://twitter.com/StanCollymore/status/1347969923289657344
https://twitter.com/Olivia_Beavers/status/134795743412035174...
https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/1347050705110986753
The @parlertakes account is a gold mine for it, if you're genuinely interested.
https://twitter.com/StanCollymore/status/1347969923289657344
https://twitter.com/Olivia_Beavers/status/134795743412035174...
https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/1347050705110986753
The @parlertakes account is a gold mine for it, if you're genuinely interested.
I'm not saying that there isn't violent content there. I'm sure there is, but there is also violent content on reddit, tik tok, twitter, facebook, and every other social media site that has ever existed.
My point is just: it seems like people are claiming that parler exists only for this content, or that they're somehow encouraging it or something. But I'm just curious how people came to this conclusion if none of us even have accounts there. I have seen some interviews with staff members there and they just seem like normal business-type people.
My point is just: it seems like people are claiming that parler exists only for this content, or that they're somehow encouraging it or something. But I'm just curious how people came to this conclusion if none of us even have accounts there. I have seen some interviews with staff members there and they just seem like normal business-type people.
> I'm sure there is, but there is also violent content on reddit, tik tok, twitter, facebook, and every other social media site that has ever existed.
Amazon says this in the article:
> This is further demonstrated by the fact that you still have not taken down much of the content that we’ve sent you.
I suspect the other sites you cite tend to take down violent/illegal content when flagged by their providers, not leave it up.
Amazon says this in the article:
> This is further demonstrated by the fact that you still have not taken down much of the content that we’ve sent you.
I suspect the other sites you cite tend to take down violent/illegal content when flagged by their providers, not leave it up.
I agree with you that the violent content is probably a very small fraction of the total content on Parler.
But, this is where much of the planning for violent events surrounding the inauguration is taking place. And Parler is refusing to remove violent content expeditiously.
What do you propose as the solution?
But, this is where much of the planning for violent events surrounding the inauguration is taking place. And Parler is refusing to remove violent content expeditiously.
What do you propose as the solution?
I signed up for Parler and just get updates from Tulsi Gabbard. I didn’t realize I was such a revolutionary.
It's a fair distinction. Applications that have private messaging systems that have exchanged all sorts of bad / illegal content to parties haven't been cancelled by their hosts or held up to such high moderation standards.
A small sample:
https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/1347050705110986753
https://twitter.com/Olivia_Beavers/status/134795743412035174...
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1347253748444389377/photo...
https://twitter.com/EricHaftelLive/status/134709088303698329...
https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/1347293348386664449
https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1347609631527489537
https://twitter.com/EricHaftelLive/status/134709088303698329...
https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/1347050705110986753
https://twitter.com/Olivia_Beavers/status/134795743412035174...
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1347253748444389377/photo...
https://twitter.com/EricHaftelLive/status/134709088303698329...
https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/1347293348386664449
https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1347609631527489537
https://twitter.com/EricHaftelLive/status/134709088303698329...
If you have family members who use the site, you have family members who are fascists. I'd recommend cutting ties before that catches up with you.
I think your point is legit. I don't have an account because I didn't want to find a burner phone.
One of the things I do is pay a lot of attention to the rhetoric of people on the US right... I've been trying to understand what all is being said and why, and my general understanding is that there are a lot of folks with legit grievances filtering them through highly, uh, metaphorical understandings of reality.
A lot of what I see in other media taken from Parler is out-and-out falsehoods about the world. And I have seen quite a lot of content in the various right-wing FB groups I have been in... enough that I don't feel like I have no gauge for what the discourse there looks like.
You're correct that they aren't directly "planning political violence".
However, it is a system where there are unchallenged and wholly fictitious views of the world being spread as if they were the patent truth. That's legal, but it's the epistemic equivalent of smoking meth and if I were a tech company interested in the continued function of the US I'd do everything in my power to stop that process.
One of the things I do is pay a lot of attention to the rhetoric of people on the US right... I've been trying to understand what all is being said and why, and my general understanding is that there are a lot of folks with legit grievances filtering them through highly, uh, metaphorical understandings of reality.
A lot of what I see in other media taken from Parler is out-and-out falsehoods about the world. And I have seen quite a lot of content in the various right-wing FB groups I have been in... enough that I don't feel like I have no gauge for what the discourse there looks like.
You're correct that they aren't directly "planning political violence".
However, it is a system where there are unchallenged and wholly fictitious views of the world being spread as if they were the patent truth. That's legal, but it's the epistemic equivalent of smoking meth and if I were a tech company interested in the continued function of the US I'd do everything in my power to stop that process.
There's a subreddit parlerwatch that's screenshotting as much of the violence-oriented stuff as possible. It's definitely big with the qanon types and followers of Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, calling for the execution of mike pence etc.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/
https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/
I think OP's point is that if you're only reporting on violent stuff, it's going to look 100% violent, even if the majority of the content is not.
Violence-inducing content is obviously not okay, but it's not fair to ignore literally everything else and then claim 100% of content is violent.
Violence-inducing content is obviously not okay, but it's not fair to ignore literally everything else and then claim 100% of content is violent.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Censors are never worried about lies, the truth is what bothers them.
[deleted]
The US was one guy with a gun away from a massacre of a whole lot of elected officials. There was at one point only four leos[1] between a mob screaming for hangings[2] and all of congress because of the rhetoric sites like these are pushing. People defending them sound either entirely disingenuous or woefully ignorant.
1. https://mobile.twitter.com/TaylerUSA/status/1346913549898149...
2. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/06/trump-riot-tw...
1. https://mobile.twitter.com/TaylerUSA/status/1346913549898149...
2. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/06/trump-riot-tw...
> People defending them sound either entirely disingenuous or woefully ignorant.
The question of the Trump era, am I talking to someone that doesn't know the facts or knows them, and is cynically lying to my face to protect their worldview and argument.
The question of the Trump era, am I talking to someone that doesn't know the facts or knows them, and is cynically lying to my face to protect their worldview and argument.
This is all both deeply immoral and disasterously unwise.
Time to split up AWS into multiple competing providers.
3000+ comments and I don't think I've seen the relevant XKCD?
https://xkcd.com/1357/
Apple and Google are now the thought police... great.
Good.
If corporations are people then they absolutely should have the right to exercise whatever free speech they want to.
Nobody is preventing those deplorables to say whatever the hell they want, but also nobody is obliged to provide services and platform to those people to spread those toxic messages.
According to /r/conservative the entire tech industry is ran by leftists, and leftists are stupid, unemployed losers who live in their moms' basements. So it should be easy for them to recreate their entire own tech infrastructure to host whatever nuclear waste dumpster fire app they want, after all it should be very easy for "smart, hardworking real Americans" like them. Hey, capitalism is all about competitions right? Last time I checked there may even be some money involved in the tech industry so I'm actually a little puzzled why they haven't done so already.
If you think I sound like a smug douchebag in this comment that's because it's exactly how I feel from reading these news these past few days.
If corporations are people then they absolutely should have the right to exercise whatever free speech they want to.
Nobody is preventing those deplorables to say whatever the hell they want, but also nobody is obliged to provide services and platform to those people to spread those toxic messages.
According to /r/conservative the entire tech industry is ran by leftists, and leftists are stupid, unemployed losers who live in their moms' basements. So it should be easy for them to recreate their entire own tech infrastructure to host whatever nuclear waste dumpster fire app they want, after all it should be very easy for "smart, hardworking real Americans" like them. Hey, capitalism is all about competitions right? Last time I checked there may even be some money involved in the tech industry so I'm actually a little puzzled why they haven't done so already.
If you think I sound like a smug douchebag in this comment that's because it's exactly how I feel from reading these news these past few days.
I agree that Parler was deplorable and needed to go, but I keep seeing this "private companies can do whatever they want" argument, and it bothers me.
For the sake of discussion, would you feel the same way if the CEOs of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast woke up tomorrow and decided they want to unilaterally block all of their customers from accessing any news sites they deem to be against their political leanings (just for the sake of discussion, let's say they block all access to MSNBC, CNN, WaPo, HuffPo, and the like).
If that happened, it would effectively cut off most Americans from being able to access news unless it agreed with those CEOs' political agenda. Would we all still be saying "well it's totally fine because AT&T et al are private companies"?
It seems obvious to me that sometimes companies become so large and have so much influence that they should not be allowed to just ban/block whoever they want, even if they are private. I'm not sure if AWS in particular is at that point, but the App Store and Google Play Store certainly feel close.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't think this "they're private so they have no obligations to serve you" is valid at the scale of the companies in question.
For the sake of discussion, would you feel the same way if the CEOs of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast woke up tomorrow and decided they want to unilaterally block all of their customers from accessing any news sites they deem to be against their political leanings (just for the sake of discussion, let's say they block all access to MSNBC, CNN, WaPo, HuffPo, and the like).
If that happened, it would effectively cut off most Americans from being able to access news unless it agreed with those CEOs' political agenda. Would we all still be saying "well it's totally fine because AT&T et al are private companies"?
It seems obvious to me that sometimes companies become so large and have so much influence that they should not be allowed to just ban/block whoever they want, even if they are private. I'm not sure if AWS in particular is at that point, but the App Store and Google Play Store certainly feel close.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't think this "they're private so they have no obligations to serve you" is valid at the scale of the companies in question.
Private companies still have to follow the law. What you mention would be anti-net neutrality and thus illegal.
The US does not have any net neutrality laws that would make the posed scenario illegal.
But! That brings up a great point, because I certainly am a proponent of net neutrality laws: would/should such laws not also apply to major internet infrastructure providers such as AWS, thus making it illegal for them to block/ban sites at their leisure?
But! That brings up a great point, because I certainly am a proponent of net neutrality laws: would/should such laws not also apply to major internet infrastructure providers such as AWS, thus making it illegal for them to block/ban sites at their leisure?
> The US does not have any net neutrality laws that would make the posed scenario illegal.
It effectively does, since revocation of Obama-era net neutrality rules is still being litigated in courts and all providers are still following them while they wait for a decision. Now that the Democrats control the Senate, the House's net neutrality bill which passed in 2019 and was blocked in the senate by Republicans will likely become law.
> would/should such laws not also apply to major internet infrastructure providers such as AWS
Net neutrality applies in the other direction. Comcast can absolutely ban you, the consumer, from using its service if you run afoul of their terms of service, as can AWS.
It effectively does, since revocation of Obama-era net neutrality rules is still being litigated in courts and all providers are still following them while they wait for a decision. Now that the Democrats control the Senate, the House's net neutrality bill which passed in 2019 and was blocked in the senate by Republicans will likely become law.
> would/should such laws not also apply to major internet infrastructure providers such as AWS
Net neutrality applies in the other direction. Comcast can absolutely ban you, the consumer, from using its service if you run afoul of their terms of service, as can AWS.
Net neutrality is a principle that applies in both directions. One of the main ideals of the NN that was being pushed for in the early 2010s in the US was for "dumb pipes" where Comcast would not be able to ban you just because you used their "pipes" in a way that they didn't like.
That is definitely not the agreed upon definition of net neutrality today. Comcast is allowed to offer different classes of service (e.g. speeds) to different people. It is allowed to ban you for violations of terms of service (e.g. illegal downloads). It is allowed to impose data caps. None of these are against Obama-era net neutrality rules. It can't do any of these, however, to the websites it serves you.
>That is definitely not the agreed upon definition of net neutrality today. Comcast is allowed to offer different classes of service (e.g. speeds) to different people. It is allowed to ban you for violations of terms of service (e.g. illegal downloads).
That's because net neutrality does not exist today. Like I mentioned in my first comment, there are no NN laws in the US.
NN has long stood for the principle of dumb pipes, regardless of you being the sender or receiver.
You edited one of your earlier comments to mention the 2019 NN law that passed in the House; I encourage you to go read that law, as it specifically strengthens consumer protections in regards to ISPs and makes it so that Comcast could not refuse to serve you based on whatever arbitrary restrictions they want. If you are downloading torrents illegally, they could ban you. But under NN, they could not ban you because you were, for example, sharing legal content that Comcast employees have political disagreements with.
That's because net neutrality does not exist today. Like I mentioned in my first comment, there are no NN laws in the US.
NN has long stood for the principle of dumb pipes, regardless of you being the sender or receiver.
You edited one of your earlier comments to mention the 2019 NN law that passed in the House; I encourage you to go read that law, as it specifically strengthens consumer protections in regards to ISPs and makes it so that Comcast could not refuse to serve you based on whatever arbitrary restrictions they want. If you are downloading torrents illegally, they could ban you. But under NN, they could not ban you because you were, for example, sharing legal content that Comcast employees have political disagreements with.
> I agree that Parler was deplorable and needed to go, but I keep seeing this "private companies can do whatever they want" argument, and it bothers me.
It bothers me too.
But I'm fine with supporting this temporarily, at least through the inauguration which is likely the highest-risk target.
For the near future, the benefits of disrupting the rioters outweigh any of my other concerns. A month or two of emergency measures isn't a big deal.
When I feel like America is peaceful again, then I'm willing to let my guard down. For now, this clear radicalization needs to stop at any costs.
----------
Over the long term: it is clear that both the left and the right are moving to break up the big internet companies with regards to antitrust, which is probably a stronger long-term solution to this situation.
These companies never should have gotten this powerful in the first place, but here we are. Might as well take advantage of it while we're dealing with insurrectionists.
It bothers me too.
But I'm fine with supporting this temporarily, at least through the inauguration which is likely the highest-risk target.
For the near future, the benefits of disrupting the rioters outweigh any of my other concerns. A month or two of emergency measures isn't a big deal.
When I feel like America is peaceful again, then I'm willing to let my guard down. For now, this clear radicalization needs to stop at any costs.
----------
Over the long term: it is clear that both the left and the right are moving to break up the big internet companies with regards to antitrust, which is probably a stronger long-term solution to this situation.
These companies never should have gotten this powerful in the first place, but here we are. Might as well take advantage of it while we're dealing with insurrectionists.
> But I'm fine with supporting this temporarily, at least through the inauguration
sounds like 'just a little bit of fascism, it won't even hurt'.
sounds like 'just a little bit of fascism, it won't even hurt'.
Was it fascism when Wikipedia banned the Church of Scientology from their website?
Or is it recognition that in discussion-based platforms, the only move you have is banning and de-platforming to various extents (from shadow-banning, to individual moderation of comments, to deletion of spam accounts). Literally the only actions you can do as an administrator to moderate discussions is cutting out speech in some way.
Or is it recognition that in discussion-based platforms, the only move you have is banning and de-platforming to various extents (from shadow-banning, to individual moderation of comments, to deletion of spam accounts). Literally the only actions you can do as an administrator to moderate discussions is cutting out speech in some way.
That's a tough job to be a mod, for sure, but there is also a thing called free speech which grants even lunatics like the scientologists, freedom of, you know, speech. And it doesn't mean 'free speech you agree with'.
What happens now is that Capitol protest is used as an excuse to exclude half of the country in the conversation before the inauguration (and most likely after), silence their voice, the voice of opposition.
And that doesn't smell kosher to me, to 75M people who voted with me, and thankfully many on the left, the classic liberals.
I don't think it's good for the country to derail to this level of totalitarian censorship, even temporary, no matter what yours or mine political beliefs are.
What happens now is that Capitol protest is used as an excuse to exclude half of the country in the conversation before the inauguration (and most likely after), silence their voice, the voice of opposition.
And that doesn't smell kosher to me, to 75M people who voted with me, and thankfully many on the left, the classic liberals.
I don't think it's good for the country to derail to this level of totalitarian censorship, even temporary, no matter what yours or mine political beliefs are.
You've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that because it destroys what this site is for (intellectual curiosity and thoughtful conversation).
I'm not going to ban you right now because it's not that long ago that you were using the site as intended (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25362757), but please review the site guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this going forward.
Just because everywhere else is bursting into flames and descending into the hell realms is no reason to destroy this place. Every community member here should be protecting HN for its intended purpose, and we'll ban as many accounts as we have to to get it back on course.
I'm not going to ban you right now because it's not that long ago that you were using the site as intended (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25362757), but please review the site guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this going forward.
Just because everywhere else is bursting into flames and descending into the hell realms is no reason to destroy this place. Every community member here should be protecting HN for its intended purpose, and we'll ban as many accounts as we have to to get it back on course.
I'm reading HN for quite some time now and there is no a day go by that I would not see a political post.
I'm not American so I don't really follow facts of your political leaders or your racial/gender problems that your government is trying to address. I consider myself neutral and I would love to see no political posts on HN. They tend to spread into flame wars and as far as I can see bring no real value apart from people venting here..
And I think for that reason you should ban everyone who does politics, either if they hate or love one side or another. Strictly no politics. I love HN for its tech stuff, not political.
I'm not American so I don't really follow facts of your political leaders or your racial/gender problems that your government is trying to address. I consider myself neutral and I would love to see no political posts on HN. They tend to spread into flame wars and as far as I can see bring no real value apart from people venting here..
And I think for that reason you should ban everyone who does politics, either if they hate or love one side or another. Strictly no politics. I love HN for its tech stuff, not political.
I've explained this many times. The answers are laid out repeatedly in comments you can find here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....
Some good threads to start with might be https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21607844 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22902396.
If anyone truly has a better idea, I'd love to hear it. But first make sure that you've familiarized yourself with the previous explanations and understand the constraints we're subject to. If it's something simple like "just ban politics" or "just allow everything", I've already answered many times why that won't work.
Given that stories with political overlap are inevitably going to appear here, that the site has rules for discussion (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), and that the rules don't stop applying just because a topic is politicized, if users break the rules repeatedly and ignore our requests to stop, we ban them. What else would we do?
If anyone truly has a better idea, I'd love to hear it. But first make sure that you've familiarized yourself with the previous explanations and understand the constraints we're subject to. If it's something simple like "just ban politics" or "just allow everything", I've already answered many times why that won't work.
Given that stories with political overlap are inevitably going to appear here, that the site has rules for discussion (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), and that the rules don't stop applying just because a topic is politicized, if users break the rules repeatedly and ignore our requests to stop, we ban them. What else would we do?
Technology is politics. Politics is technology. You can't wholly separate them.
I have read that there was a week or so in 2016 when HN tried banning all political stories, and it was decided that it didn't work.
I have read that there was a week or so in 2016 when HN tried banning all political stories, and it was decided that it didn't work.
I humbly don't agree with the statement that technology is politics - it does not make me a better software developer if somebody or somebody else will be a president.
Even though there is an overlap (i.e. taxation, regulations and policies) and we could talk about this since these are the things that impact revenue. But discussion about politics outside of those things that affect us directly is leading to flame wars and unnecessary arguments that bring us nowhere.
Personally I feel even talking about taxes/regulations brings us nowhere as we have no way to influence them.
Even though there is an overlap (i.e. taxation, regulations and policies) and we could talk about this since these are the things that impact revenue. But discussion about politics outside of those things that affect us directly is leading to flame wars and unnecessary arguments that bring us nowhere.
Personally I feel even talking about taxes/regulations brings us nowhere as we have no way to influence them.
If you run a social network, you need to decide what posts to allow on your platform. Every platform needs some moderation, lest they be overrun with spam and porn and scams.
If you develop artificial intelligence, you need to determine what applications of the technology are ethical. Is it okay to sell to authoritarian governments? What about the US military? What about individual police departments?
If you develop hardware, or run servers, you need to consider your impact on the planet.
If you develop artificial intelligence, you need to determine what applications of the technology are ethical. Is it okay to sell to authoritarian governments? What about the US military? What about individual police departments?
If you develop hardware, or run servers, you need to consider your impact on the planet.
> If you run a social network, you need to decide what posts to allow on your platform. Every platform needs some moderation, lest they be overrun with spam and porn and scams.
Agree, spam/porn/scams are problem on this kind of platforms. But social media is only tiny part of tech in general, and also spam/porn/scams is not really political. And I guess, if in example somebody posted hateful content or content that is bringing damage then this is what our juridical system should handle?
> If you develop artificial intelligence, you need to determine what applications of the technology are ethical. Is it okay to sell to authoritarian governments? What about the US military? What about individual police departments?
Most of the times I - as an engineer - have no say when it comes to those issues - from my experience these are business issues, not technical. And I guess these issues are probably influenced by politics, to some degree.
> If you develop hardware, or run servers, you need to consider your impact on the planet.
I'd say same as above - it's business to decide what to do about those issues. We as engineers think about efficiency - and had been thinking for decades, as far as my experience goes. I was always taught to build things that consume least amount of electricity, things that get from A to B with least effort. And Mr X or Mr Y being a president had no influence at those principles.
Agree, spam/porn/scams are problem on this kind of platforms. But social media is only tiny part of tech in general, and also spam/porn/scams is not really political. And I guess, if in example somebody posted hateful content or content that is bringing damage then this is what our juridical system should handle?
> If you develop artificial intelligence, you need to determine what applications of the technology are ethical. Is it okay to sell to authoritarian governments? What about the US military? What about individual police departments?
Most of the times I - as an engineer - have no say when it comes to those issues - from my experience these are business issues, not technical. And I guess these issues are probably influenced by politics, to some degree.
> If you develop hardware, or run servers, you need to consider your impact on the planet.
I'd say same as above - it's business to decide what to do about those issues. We as engineers think about efficiency - and had been thinking for decades, as far as my experience goes. I was always taught to build things that consume least amount of electricity, things that get from A to B with least effort. And Mr X or Mr Y being a president had no influence at those principles.
Don’t allow ideological posts then alltogether, otherwise you can only expect flame wars, endless flagging, and more work for you.
I’d be happy not to see politics on HN, but I’m not going to remain quiet when I see one-sided political argument here just like on Reddit.
I’d be happy not to see politics on HN, but I’m not going to remain quiet when I see one-sided political argument here just like on Reddit.
That's not the way this site works. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25723581 for more explanation, and links to tons more explanation.
The way this site works is that you (not you personally, but all of us) need to follow the rules regardless of what other people are doing. Right now you're flagrantly breaking them.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The way this site works is that you (not you personally, but all of us) need to follow the rules regardless of what other people are doing. Right now you're flagrantly breaking them.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> That's a tough job to be a mod, for sure, but there is also a thing called free speech which grants even lunatics like the scientologists, freedom of, you know, speech. And it doesn't mean 'free speech you agree with'.
And yet, Wikipedia was allowed to ban them when they started to wreak havoc on the site in 2009. And I don't believe it was very controversial, but my memory may be a bit foggy from the years. (Also, being caught up as part of the Anon-mob at the time probably warps my understanding of the events).
> I don't think it's good for the country to derail to this level of totalitarian censorship, even temporary, no matter what yours or mine political beliefs are.
As far as I'm concerned, this is not much different from Hay's Code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code
Hollywood in the 1930s conspired to censor movies that didn't follow the code. Today, we're seeing that websites that don't follow a code (ie: don't insight violent rhetoric) are open to censorship.
Now I love myself a good pre-code Hollywood flick, and even may find myself oogling at a bit of pornography every now and then. And obviously, the rule against interracial marriage was not very kosher. So I'm certainly happy to be living today rather than in the code-days. But I think you're over-exaggerating for how bad things will be if we go down this path.
--------
Up till now, we lived in the glorious "pre code" days of the Internet. Alas, as we move forward, we understand the power that this new medium holds. And like Hay's of the 1927, we're realizing that we must hold websites accountable.
And yet, Wikipedia was allowed to ban them when they started to wreak havoc on the site in 2009. And I don't believe it was very controversial, but my memory may be a bit foggy from the years. (Also, being caught up as part of the Anon-mob at the time probably warps my understanding of the events).
> I don't think it's good for the country to derail to this level of totalitarian censorship, even temporary, no matter what yours or mine political beliefs are.
As far as I'm concerned, this is not much different from Hay's Code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code
Hollywood in the 1930s conspired to censor movies that didn't follow the code. Today, we're seeing that websites that don't follow a code (ie: don't insight violent rhetoric) are open to censorship.
Now I love myself a good pre-code Hollywood flick, and even may find myself oogling at a bit of pornography every now and then. And obviously, the rule against interracial marriage was not very kosher. So I'm certainly happy to be living today rather than in the code-days. But I think you're over-exaggerating for how bad things will be if we go down this path.
--------
Up till now, we lived in the glorious "pre code" days of the Internet. Alas, as we move forward, we understand the power that this new medium holds. And like Hay's of the 1927, we're realizing that we must hold websites accountable.
That's a good point, but what you are describing would only happen if the vast majority of shareholders, employees, customers and owners of key telecom companies all have the opposite political/world value of the general public, so I think it's highly unlikely.
If it does somehow happen, then yes, we should look at how come all the employees, customers, shareholders and owners of the key telecom companies all happen to hold the opposite value of the general public, that would be the bigger failure.
>It seems obvious to me that sometimes companies become so large and have so much influence that they should not be allowed to just ban/block whoever they want, even if they are private.
I disagree, there is a nuanced, but big difference in government allowing free speech and government guaranteeing free speech. I'm mostly for the former and mostly against the latter.
If it does somehow happen, then yes, we should look at how come all the employees, customers, shareholders and owners of the key telecom companies all happen to hold the opposite value of the general public, that would be the bigger failure.
>It seems obvious to me that sometimes companies become so large and have so much influence that they should not be allowed to just ban/block whoever they want, even if they are private.
I disagree, there is a nuanced, but big difference in government allowing free speech and government guaranteeing free speech. I'm mostly for the former and mostly against the latter.
ATT and Verizon are consumer service providers. If they block parler that will be unacceptable. AWS is just a cloud vendor. Parler can choose to work with any number of other vendors or run their own servers. It's not the same comparison.
[deleted]
First off, we've gone over this many times before in net neutrality arguments, but ISPs are quite different from websites. Most americans only have access to 1 or 2 ISP, but anyone can create and host their own website.
Next up, look at the other side of the equation. Are you ok with websites banning child pornography? What about ISIS recruitment videos? Now, what about doxxing people or posts from QAnon recruiting people to raid the Capitol? Clearly you accept a line somewhere, you wouldn't want to live in a completely lawless internet where AWS hosts child pornography, you just don't agree with the exact position of the line then?
Yes they have power, but they're not stupid, they'll never ban half the internet, it just doesn't make sense, either monetarily, morally or from a popularity point of view. I personally don't buy any of the slippery slope arguments, they seem to be thrown there by people who just want the line to be in a slightly different position.
Next up, look at the other side of the equation. Are you ok with websites banning child pornography? What about ISIS recruitment videos? Now, what about doxxing people or posts from QAnon recruiting people to raid the Capitol? Clearly you accept a line somewhere, you wouldn't want to live in a completely lawless internet where AWS hosts child pornography, you just don't agree with the exact position of the line then?
Yes they have power, but they're not stupid, they'll never ban half the internet, it just doesn't make sense, either monetarily, morally or from a popularity point of view. I personally don't buy any of the slippery slope arguments, they seem to be thrown there by people who just want the line to be in a slightly different position.
It an an interesting thing to ponder, but I don’t think it’s analogous.
> block MSNBC, CNN, WaPo, HuffPo
I’ll be fine if these news sites were spewing hatred and fascism.
I’ll be fine if these news sites were spewing hatred and fascism.
That's dodging the question. Let's say they weren't spewing hatred/fascism, and were reporting on critical information that Americans need to know. But AT&T blocks them. Is the response still going to be "AT&T is private, so it's okay because private companies can do whatever they want"?
>so it's okay because private companies can do whatever they want
The point is they can't do whatever they want, just like Google/FB/Amazon actually can't do whatever they want.
They can only do it if it's the will of the majority of their customers, employees and shareholders. Jack Dorsey or Jeff Bezos can't make decisions like this unilaterally without the support of all those parties.
The point is they can't do whatever they want, just like Google/FB/Amazon actually can't do whatever they want.
They can only do it if it's the will of the majority of their customers, employees and shareholders. Jack Dorsey or Jeff Bezos can't make decisions like this unilaterally without the support of all those parties.
The CEO of CloudFlare famously said that the reason he decided to deplatform Daily Stormer (after previously saying he would not deplatform them) was because one morning he woke up in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the internet. Literally all it took was one CEO waking up on the wrong side of the bed one morning. It seems entirely inaccurate to say that Dorsey or Bezos couldn't make a decision unilaterally like that if they really wanted.
I'm not sure about Twitter, but Bezos is the majority shareholder at Amazon and if he really wanted to, could make the decision to ban anyone he wants and nobody would legally be able to stop him, will of the employees/shareholders/public be damned.
I'm not sure about Twitter, but Bezos is the majority shareholder at Amazon and if he really wanted to, could make the decision to ban anyone he wants and nobody would legally be able to stop him, will of the employees/shareholders/public be damned.
I can almost guarantee you he wouldn’t have done it and got away with it if he didn’t know his decision was going to be popular among their employees and shareholders.
Of course he made a statement that made himself sound courageous, but it was the easiest decision ever and a PR move lol.
Of course he made a statement that made himself sound courageous, but it was the easiest decision ever and a PR move lol.
[deleted]
Yes of course it’s okay. Private companies can terminate services at will.
If AT&T terminates customers’ access to websites, customers will go to Verizon etc.
If all providers blocked access, they must have a good reason.
If AT&T terminates customers’ access to websites, customers will go to Verizon etc.
If all providers blocked access, they must have a good reason.
>If AT&T terminates customers’ access to websites, customers will go to Verizon etc.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the ISP market in the US, but the point here is that there are many areas in which customers cannot switch to another ISP. If AT&T were to block websites, those customers would have zero ability to access them. Hence the "some companies are too big and influential" bit.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the ISP market in the US, but the point here is that there are many areas in which customers cannot switch to another ISP. If AT&T were to block websites, those customers would have zero ability to access them. Hence the "some companies are too big and influential" bit.
Also I sincerely ask you to check out WTF is being posted on Parker, if you haven’t.
For curiosity I registered and took a look, it’s disgusting and I absolutely support it being obliterated.
I also think that the real world isn’t that hypothetical and there are a lot of rights and wrongs. You shouldn’t give these racists the same freedom.
For curiosity I registered and took a look, it’s disgusting and I absolutely support it being obliterated.
I also think that the real world isn’t that hypothetical and there are a lot of rights and wrongs. You shouldn’t give these racists the same freedom.
I support net neutrality and think internet should be a utility and treats all websites the same.
But if a website is willingly violating terms of service defined by the provider (hosting child pornography, spreading racism etc), I support the IPS to block access or whatever.
The fact that some users have no alternative is another problem.
But if a website is willingly violating terms of service defined by the provider (hosting child pornography, spreading racism etc), I support the IPS to block access or whatever.
The fact that some users have no alternative is another problem.
You fundamentally misunderstand the political divide, if you think that HuffPo is not viewed as "spewing hatred and fascism".
It's not hatred towards things you like, or what you view as fascism, but I can assure you that the viewpoints it espouses are seen as fascist and oppressive to those who disagree.
It's not hatred towards things you like, or what you view as fascism, but I can assure you that the viewpoints it espouses are seen as fascist and oppressive to those who disagree.
Oh, I disagree a lot of these Leftist websites.
Especially the NYT, they have so much BS and I can almost agree that they are fake news.
But there is a huge difference between BSing and inciting violence.
Especially the NYT, they have so much BS and I can almost agree that they are fake news.
But there is a huge difference between BSing and inciting violence.
This has nothing to do with corporations being people. This and citizens united have nothing to do with each other.
Businesses do not need to give you a platform just because. They reserve the right to do business, or not do business, with whomever they choose.
Don't conflate that with "being people."
Businesses do not need to give you a platform just because. They reserve the right to do business, or not do business, with whomever they choose.
Don't conflate that with "being people."
I think op is highlighting the double-standard of conservative principles.
"We want to have free enterprise and no government intervention except when free enterprise decides to ban them for being assholes."
"We want to have free enterprise and no government intervention except when free enterprise decides to ban them for being assholes."
The conservatives aren't the ones flipping here though. They're complaining, not suing.
The flip is coming from people who opposed "private companies owe no one their services" when it was Masterpiece Cake Shop, but now love it.
The flip is coming from people who opposed "private companies owe no one their services" when it was Masterpiece Cake Shop, but now love it.
Maybe. I think arguments without context and nuance are unhelpful.
koolba(9)
Good riddance is all I have to say on the matter.
Please let them move to a Ukraine-based host. We can then watch as true patriots discover Hunter Biden's Burisma connections laundering oil and gas money through cloud hosting operations supporting Parler. Parler itself will then be unmasked as a major false flag operation perpetrated by antifa and well-known long-con artists "BLM". True patriots will identify that they've known all along, and were simply trying to infiltrate it and get the final dirt on Uranium One and pull HRC in prison.
I'm half-joking, half-serious, but I'm not sure which half is which at this point...
I'm half-joking, half-serious, but I'm not sure which half is which at this point...
Saying shit like Parler itself will then be unmasked as a major false flag operation perpetrated by antifa and well-known long-con artists "BLM"
and then saying
I'm half-joking, half-serious, but I'm not sure which half is which at this point
is the type of shit that needs to be flagged. Leave that kind of trash on Parler.
and then saying
I'm half-joking, half-serious, but I'm not sure which half is which at this point
is the type of shit that needs to be flagged. Leave that kind of trash on Parler.
For all the fear of the rise of fascism over the past 4 years coming from the Republican Party it appears we must also now worry about this coming from the Democratic Party. Mega-corporations acting on the behalf of the party coming into power, that will be most definitely be regulating those companies, is about as textbook fascist as you can get. However, no one who matters cares because they happen to agree with those in power. I hated all 4 years of Trump, that doesn't mean I want the elite class controlling the public.
edit: please downvote me more. I take pleasure in your cognitive dissonance.
edit: please downvote me more. I take pleasure in your cognitive dissonance.
Corporate power bereft of ultra-nationalism, and generic authoritarianism, are not fascism. Whatever else you can say about the Democrats, they are not in favor of blood-and-soil policies. I did not downvote your post but I find your watering down of the phrase of fascism to be worth taking issue with. As for the troubling power of mega-corporations, it’s rather sad that this is the incident that made you aware of it. So you didn’t see fit to criticize them until now?
Just like with COVID, this reaction is probably way too late to work the way some of you hope.
IMO you are probably now radicalizing the more moderate members of what seems to be a significant proportion of your population by giving them actual cause for their feelings of persecution.
How is anyone surprised after years of Democrats claiming that the Russians were able to compromise the 2016 election in Trumps favour, that there are now people who believe their candidate has lost an election due to manipulation?
There is guilt on both sides for this mess, I hope you guys can work it out.
IMO you are probably now radicalizing the more moderate members of what seems to be a significant proportion of your population by giving them actual cause for their feelings of persecution.
How is anyone surprised after years of Democrats claiming that the Russians were able to compromise the 2016 election in Trumps favour, that there are now people who believe their candidate has lost an election due to manipulation?
There is guilt on both sides for this mess, I hope you guys can work it out.
[deleted]
"We were too successful too fast." -Parler
"We’re going to win so much that you’re going to be sick and tired." -Trump
"We’re going to win so much that you’re going to be sick and tired." -Trump
they ban parler but are OK with hosting pornhub that literally has child porn content
Freedom of speech basically always has two sides to it. If you would prevent Twitter from suspending Trump's account, then you're forcing Twitter to be a platform for the president; you're literally requiring it to broadcast the government's message.
You're not protecting freedom of speech in itself when you damage one party's to protect another's.
You're not protecting freedom of speech in itself when you damage one party's to protect another's.
Everyone saying this is a slippery slope to tech companies regulating speech are being completely ridiculous.
https://twitter.com/IntelDoge/status/1348099918381068289
Check the images there. People are literally planning murder on Parler and people are acting as if AWS, Apple, etc should not do anything. Parler REFUSES to remove these posts.
I could see if it was something other than murder, or violence but I can't take anyone serious who is ok with all the craziness on Parler.
I would completely agree with any conservative or person of any political persuasion if AWS, Apple, etc were deplatforming Parler for their political views.
When did it become controversial to try to stop companies that people are using to organize violent acts ?
Additional Parler posts about murdering people from https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/
[1] https://preview.redd.it/q8szoz0pcda61.jpg?width=640&crop=sma...
[2] https://i.redd.it/56siiqv8fda61.jpg
[3] https://i.redd.it/k1fgbg59fda61.jpg
https://twitter.com/IntelDoge/status/1348099918381068289
Check the images there. People are literally planning murder on Parler and people are acting as if AWS, Apple, etc should not do anything. Parler REFUSES to remove these posts.
I could see if it was something other than murder, or violence but I can't take anyone serious who is ok with all the craziness on Parler.
I would completely agree with any conservative or person of any political persuasion if AWS, Apple, etc were deplatforming Parler for their political views.
When did it become controversial to try to stop companies that people are using to organize violent acts ?
Additional Parler posts about murdering people from https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/
[1] https://preview.redd.it/q8szoz0pcda61.jpg?width=640&crop=sma...
[2] https://i.redd.it/56siiqv8fda61.jpg
[3] https://i.redd.it/k1fgbg59fda61.jpg
hope someone has been archiving posts there, for evidence, etc.
Just going to get my prediction in now: This is going to result in top-to-bottom divergence of tech along political lines. Someone will make a right-wing AWS, and then someone will make a right-wing smartphone.
good
Good riddance
Net NoTrality
It was number 1 app for 48 hours, post Trump big tech is biggest threat to the world. wall street pales in comparison, china too.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There are already calls in congress for similar measures against OANN, Newsmax and Fox News and also calls for action by lower-level providers such as AWS.
It doesn't take much thought to see the US is going for the next few years.
It doesn't take much thought to see the US is going for the next few years.
Everyone saying they deserve it for "facilitating attacks on the US government", ask yourself if you believe Antifa should be kicked off of every platform they exist on for burning police stations.
This is hypocrisy. Far too much of modern tech is held by companies happy to use it as a political weapon, and all for one side. I'm disgusted by the people who populate Parler, but I'm actually afraid of these tech authoritarians.
This is hypocrisy. Far too much of modern tech is held by companies happy to use it as a political weapon, and all for one side. I'm disgusted by the people who populate Parler, but I'm actually afraid of these tech authoritarians.
I ran a very open forum with extremely light moderation for almost 2 decades and it started out very normal; It was spun off of famous tech bloggers website. But it eventually became overrun with the same type of people we're talking about here.
My hosting provider was contacted a few times and I always had to moderate the content, make software changes, etc. The last time I got an abuse notice from them I decided to just pack it in. What I'm saying is this sort of thing is nothing new -- it's just getting a lot of attention now.
> ask yourself if you believe Antifa should be kicked off of every platform they exist on for burning police stations.
If Antifa was planning violent actions on a platform, you can bet their hosting provider would get the same notifications and it would again be up to the provider to decide if they want that liability.
My hosting provider was contacted a few times and I always had to moderate the content, make software changes, etc. The last time I got an abuse notice from them I decided to just pack it in. What I'm saying is this sort of thing is nothing new -- it's just getting a lot of attention now.
> ask yourself if you believe Antifa should be kicked off of every platform they exist on for burning police stations.
If Antifa was planning violent actions on a platform, you can bet their hosting provider would get the same notifications and it would again be up to the provider to decide if they want that liability.
Yeah, I fully think that a social network that doesn't censor the calls to burn police stations should be banned. I don't care what side it's from, enticing violence on a large scale isn't okay.
Well, I disagree but I respect the internal consistency. You're a step ahead most of the people supporting this nonsense.
You disagree with the idea that calling for violence one a large scale isn't ok?
Sorry, what are you referring to? Would love to see links to police stations being burnt by organized groups.
I have my doubts that twitter users calling for burning police stations would not in fact be banned if they caught the eyes of a moderator
Look at the examples from Amazon, they had single digit up votes. Amazon called them out for 98 posts over serval weeks. How many users and daily posts on Parler? I get the CEO comments but the violent content examples from Amazon seemed weak.
Does antifa have a social network hosted on AWS?
Well, because antifa is not a thing. That's why. Who is the leader of antifa? Where do they organize?
That's what I thought.
That's what I thought.
Damn! You're right.
Who should we reach out to and ask them to stop saying what they're saying?
Maybe you can point me to the leader of the atheists while you're at it.
Who should we reach out to and ask them to stop saying what they're saying?
Maybe you can point me to the leader of the atheists while you're at it.
We've banned this account for trolling. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
All forms of extremism, regardless of political valence, should be deprived of air. Is that consistent enough for you?
It's pretty dumb, since I guarantee more people organize violence via Twitter and Facebook than Parler. Even via Gmail.
There's a bunch of Antifa accounts that conduct doxxing and organise riots on Twitter. Why is Twitter fine?
There's a bunch of Antifa accounts that conduct doxxing and organise riots on Twitter. Why is Twitter fine?
Overreaching is an understatement. This is a heavy handed censorship.
I don't recall Twitter or Whatsapp getting booted from AWS when they are routinely used for organizing riots and violence and a lot worse stuff.
I don't recall Twitter or Whatsapp getting booted from AWS when they are routinely used for organizing riots and violence and a lot worse stuff.
I don't even care about the free speech argument. Ban the racists, great. All I'm saying, is that Cthulhu is not happy Signal is #1 in the app store right now. Big tech/brother/whatever will never be your friend. The zeitgeist wants to eat you. The drone in your window will see you downloading that decentralized OS (I hope that's just poetry).
At what exact point, I wonder, will Hacker News stop complaining about slippery slopes and freedom of speech, and actually consider the possibility that they might lose a whole lot more than the ability to run an app? That they might, reasonably, lose the privilege of living in a functioning democracy?
That maybe there are more pressing concerns than what apps they can run on their phones? More pressing concerns than the ability to act like an asshole online? That maybe it's time to take the threat of the far right seriously?
That maybe there are more pressing concerns than what apps they can run on their phones? More pressing concerns than the ability to act like an asshole online? That maybe it's time to take the threat of the far right seriously?
It’s telling when people are more scared about some people being banned from a an online forum than they are about an insurrection and death threats toward the Vice President and members of Congress.
While I personally disagree with any and all censorship, the real question here is who is allowed to decide the rules?
Even if we were all to agree that a specific ideology or narrative could be dangerous there is an issue with putting a central entity in a position of control.
As we have seen, rules are applied arbitrarily and even when there are defined rules, platforms continue to make any type of decision they want.
Even if we were all to agree that a specific ideology or narrative could be dangerous there is an issue with putting a central entity in a position of control.
As we have seen, rules are applied arbitrarily and even when there are defined rules, platforms continue to make any type of decision they want.
Is that REALLY a bigger problem than a murderous crowd trying to overthrow democracy, egged on by the president?
If they don’t like it they should create their own government.
They have to do this by the fact that Google and Apple preceded them, they don't want to appear as the bad guys.
First: good riddance. Let the neo-Nazis, fascists, and white supremacists make do with Stormfront or 4chan.
Second: regardless of your politics/beliefs, this is what people get for not self-hosting.
1. Putting your site on AWS is not self-hosting.
2. Putting your site on Github Pages is not self-hosting.
3. Putting your site on Cloudflare is not self-hosting.
4. Putting your site on shared hosting or a VPS like Dreamhost, DigitalOcean, Linode, or Vultr is not self-hosting.
Self-hosting means you pay for your own pipe, your own hardware, and your own space in which to keep the hardware, whether it's on your own premises or in a co-location facility owned by individuals sympathetic to your views.
Corporations don't exist to provide you with a platform for your views, especially if they're as repugnant as those frequently aired on sites like Parler. They exist to make a profit for their owners/stockholders, and if you hamper that mission they will throw you under a bus.
Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant; corporations will do as they please unless the state governments that issue their charters (which in the US is mostly Delaware) start revoking them and dissolving corporations that abuse their power.
People keep forgetting that "the cloud" is just somebody else's computer, and that somebody else is NOT your friend or ally.
Second: regardless of your politics/beliefs, this is what people get for not self-hosting.
1. Putting your site on AWS is not self-hosting.
2. Putting your site on Github Pages is not self-hosting.
3. Putting your site on Cloudflare is not self-hosting.
4. Putting your site on shared hosting or a VPS like Dreamhost, DigitalOcean, Linode, or Vultr is not self-hosting.
Self-hosting means you pay for your own pipe, your own hardware, and your own space in which to keep the hardware, whether it's on your own premises or in a co-location facility owned by individuals sympathetic to your views.
Corporations don't exist to provide you with a platform for your views, especially if they're as repugnant as those frequently aired on sites like Parler. They exist to make a profit for their owners/stockholders, and if you hamper that mission they will throw you under a bus.
Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant; corporations will do as they please unless the state governments that issue their charters (which in the US is mostly Delaware) start revoking them and dissolving corporations that abuse their power.
People keep forgetting that "the cloud" is just somebody else's computer, and that somebody else is NOT your friend or ally.
At some point, you must rely on someone else's infrastructure. What if your DNS provider boots you? What if your ISP won't carry your bytes?
I think you're this close to making an argument for publicly owned infrastructure or for regulating DNS providers and ISPs as public utilities obligated to serve as common carriers. Was that what you had in mind?
Regardless of how you feel about free speech:
Apple and Google being able to dictate what software is popular/acceptable/usable and what software is not is 100% not ok.
Dump your smartphone or if you must have one use a pinephone.
Dump your smartphone or if you must have one use a pinephone.
AWS is screwing itself. No one will every trust AWS ever again. Why would any legitimate business use AWS ever again? Amazon doesn't like your product, they will shut off your site.
This is the fucking end of cloud computing.
This is the fucking end of cloud computing.
On August 16th, 2017, Cloudflare terminated the account of Daily Stormer. Today Cloudflare is doing better than ever.
Parler is being used to plan murder. See the link below. Posts arent being taken down on Parler. This has nothing to do with Amazon not liking a product. People are planning actual murder. Are you serious ?
https://twitter.com/IntelDoge/status/1348099918381068289
The United States is done. The tools that this community is building to enable political censorship will surely come back to you.
You can call this Democracy. But this feels like Authoritarianism.
I'm so disappointed in Silicon Valley and those in the Hacker News Community that are stamping out free expression. Shame on you.
You can call this Democracy. But this feels like Authoritarianism.
I'm so disappointed in Silicon Valley and those in the Hacker News Community that are stamping out free expression. Shame on you.
The United States will be done in by... stamping out the free expression of openly organizing to commit sedition against the United States.
Spare us.
Spare us.
[deleted]
sedition.
Big loaded words. This was a peasant revolt of gas station employees - that did a lot less damage than the riots in San Francisco last summer.
Big loaded words. This was a peasant revolt of gas station employees - that did a lot less damage than the riots in San Francisco last summer.
> loaded words
The literal definition of sedition [1] is:
2. Do you deny that Congress was in session at this time?
3. Do you deny that the breach of the Capitol hindered the Congress's ability to certify vote totals for the presidential election?
If the answer to all three of those is "no", then we are literally talking about sedition.
[1]: https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-pr...
The literal definition of sedition [1] is:
If two or more persons [...] conspire [...] to prevent, hinder, or delay the
execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or
possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof
2. Do you deny that Congress was in session at this time?
3. Do you deny that the breach of the Capitol hindered the Congress's ability to certify vote totals for the presidential election?
If the answer to all three of those is "no", then we are literally talking about sedition.
[1]: https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-pr...
Does seem to apply. Also appears that this sedition law applies to the perpetrators every statue owned by the government that was torn down as well. So we can officially call them seditionists now.
On Parler they are bragging they have kill lists of people who they don’t like and warn that they are coming.
What do you say to someone on those lists? The FBI doesn’t think these are LARPers.
I am really afraid of the ex armed forces types that think this is the funnest thing to do with their short time on Earth. But it’s real.
What will happen when they gain control of nuclear weapons or other mass weapons? Are they more angry at foreign foes, or purging liberals? Who is an easier fight?
What do you say to someone on those lists? The FBI doesn’t think these are LARPers.
I am really afraid of the ex armed forces types that think this is the funnest thing to do with their short time on Earth. But it’s real.
What will happen when they gain control of nuclear weapons or other mass weapons? Are they more angry at foreign foes, or purging liberals? Who is an easier fight?
"All of these authoritarian powers will, ironically, be invoked and justified in the name of stopping authoritarianism — not from those who wield power but from the movement that was just removed from power. Those who spent four years shrieking to great profit about the dangers of lurking “fascism” will — without realizing the irony — now use this merger of state and corporate power to consolidate their own authority, control the contours of permissible debate, and silence those who challenge them even further"
[1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-threat-of-authoritarian...
[1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-threat-of-authoritarian...
Oh boo hoo a company is being thrown in the trash because they encourage terrorism against elected officials.
My family fought in the American Revolution and I was an elected DNC delegate. This is cowardly and unamerican.
If you think being able to trace your ancestry back to certain well connected families makes your opinions more valid and important than other people’s then you believe in aristocracies, and maybe you’re the un-American one. If you think that companies should have their first amendment freedom of association rights violated by forcing them to do business with people they don’t want to do business with them maybe you’re the un-American one who doesn’t understand what the first amendment entails.
You have my vote, sir.
This is what feel like Authoritarianism? Not the attempted theft of a legitimate democratic election?
Hmmm...name me one country where it’s less restrictive than the US. People really take the freedom afforded in the US for granted.
You are right. There is no where to go. Its sad to see this disappear.
In an actual authoritarian country Jack Dorsey would have been thrown into a gulag or re-education camp for banning Trump. The fact that private citizens can openly defy their leaders is the exact opposite of authoritarianism.
Or, fuck them for choosing to work for a company that at best is a racist cesspool and at worst is abetting an attempt to steal an election.
Every single thing that has happened with Parler was foreseeable and forseen on the day it was announced. It was never about free speech, and everyone knew that.
Every single thing that has happened with Parler was foreseeable and forseen on the day it was announced. It was never about free speech, and everyone knew that.
Please don't break the site guidelines like this, regardless of how right you are or feel you are, or how wrong others are or you feel they are. None of that justifies taking HN threads further into ideological flamewar hell, which is totally what we're trying to avoid here.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25708021.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: in case it's helpful, here's an example of a comment with views similar to yours that doesn't resort to bomb-throwing at the same time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25708359
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25708021.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: in case it's helpful, here's an example of a comment with views similar to yours that doesn't resort to bomb-throwing at the same time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25708359
ivojp(4)
[deleted]
Thats okay, they can just build their own network, hosting, payment processor, and app store. Totally not censorship.
Bake the cake.
Host the site.
I will no longer do business with amozon apple or google .
They should ban gay wedding cakes along with Parler, then conservatives would be fine with this right?
Germany decided a long time ago that free speech has limits, if you tolerate intolerance it leads to fascism. History has proved that several times.
Personally I would love to hear what is going on behind the scenes at Parler from a devops perspective.
Were they just running ec2? In which case leasing a data center will be inconvenient but manageable.
If they were using more of the managed products then good riddance.
I'm curious if the devs at Parler will put it on their resumes when looking for a new job.
Germany decided a long time ago that free speech has limits, if you tolerate intolerance it leads to fascism. History has proved that several times.
Personally I would love to hear what is going on behind the scenes at Parler from a devops perspective.
Were they just running ec2? In which case leasing a data center will be inconvenient but manageable.
If they were using more of the managed products then good riddance.
I'm curious if the devs at Parler will put it on their resumes when looking for a new job.
“Just build your own hosting platform”
[deleted]
I'm curious to see how far things have gone.
Does anyone here believe that an employer should be able to fire an employee for supporting Trump?
Does anyone here believe that an employer should be able to fire an employee for supporting Trump?
I don't know if they should be able to but in the USA at least can't you fire anyone for any reason as long as they aren't part of a protected class? I don't think there are any laws against political discrimination, are there?
Political affiliation is a protected class in some states[0] including California[1].
[0] https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/discrimin...
[1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employmen...
[0] https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/discrimin...
[1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employmen...
You guys are smarter than me, hence question. But I think you are correct.
Political affiliation or beliefs are not a protected class in the US, so yes you can very much get fired for that without recourse.
Supporting Trump, no.
Then again, if you were filmed taking part in a violent insurrection at the capitol building, please don't bother coming back to work if you work for me.
Then again, if you were filmed taking part in a violent insurrection at the capitol building, please don't bother coming back to work if you work for me.
Would you also fire a BLM activist who was recorded setting a fire, breaking a window etc?
Yes.
What is you were outside protesting but didn't go in the building?
People on the left are mistaken if they think this is going to help. Someone somewhere in the country will plot something. We are playing with fire with these type of restrictions, root causes are not being solved. 75 million people voted for Donald Trump.
'We really shouldn't deplatform these terrorists because they might just do something extreme' get the fuck out of here.
Bingo. It was that kind of thinking that put Neville Chamberlin in the dunk tank of history.
I’ve warned on the same point. I hope notice is taken before it’s too late.
It’s the neoliberal center that controls the big tech companies, not the left. The left is scrappy neighborhood groups of activists that run soup kitchens and lie down in front of oil pipelines and collect signatures for ballot referendums. They gather in coffee shop bookstores to have book clubs on malatesta. They’re flat broke and half of them are homeless and based on what I’m hearing they’re pretty much convinced that they’re next on the censorship list. I mean you can’t really look at those kids and Jeff Bezos and say, hmm, looks the same to me.
Yep. There's a left wing inside the Democratic party, but the Democratic party is not left wing.
George Soros is not "left wing" Bill Clinton was not "left", and Hilary wasn't either.
It's not even a question of what's relative. They don't even call themselves "left."
I spent much of my 20s and 30s in the organized and unorganized left, as an activist. Back then (90s, mostly), globalization was the enemy, not the goal. We were tear gassed at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City protesting the negotiation of trade agreements. It's a strange world to see now people lump BLM and Bernie Sanders and your local Trotskyite sect in the same camp as Biden, and "globalists" and "George Soros."
As in 1930s Germany, the far right has adopted certain clasically left positions on certain issues in order to mobilize the working class, but for opposite goals. Many of the slogans chanted in the Capitol building the other day ("whose house? our house?") are directly lifted from left wing activists.
Nothing speaks to the disintegration and loss of the actual socialist left in North America more than the fact people can't identify them anymore from the background neoliberalism of the American political mainstream.
George Soros is not "left wing" Bill Clinton was not "left", and Hilary wasn't either.
It's not even a question of what's relative. They don't even call themselves "left."
I spent much of my 20s and 30s in the organized and unorganized left, as an activist. Back then (90s, mostly), globalization was the enemy, not the goal. We were tear gassed at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City protesting the negotiation of trade agreements. It's a strange world to see now people lump BLM and Bernie Sanders and your local Trotskyite sect in the same camp as Biden, and "globalists" and "George Soros."
As in 1930s Germany, the far right has adopted certain clasically left positions on certain issues in order to mobilize the working class, but for opposite goals. Many of the slogans chanted in the Capitol building the other day ("whose house? our house?") are directly lifted from left wing activists.
Nothing speaks to the disintegration and loss of the actual socialist left in North America more than the fact people can't identify them anymore from the background neoliberalism of the American political mainstream.
Yes the left and the (often far) right will recognize the same problem but then put forth very, very different causes of and solutions to those problems. Both contrast with the center that doesn’t even agree there is a problem (e.g. healthcare).
In the case of Hitler and Mussolini it wasn't some organic process of arriving at different solutions to similar problems. They literally looked at how the early socialist movement was successful with working people and outright copied the language and symbolism and then modified it. They were very explicit about what they were doing, hence the "socialist" label in the Nazi name despite having no socialist program. They wanted to recruit those people and divert them to their cause.
Every time I hear one of these Trumpite nutbars go on about the "mainstream media" I have to give my head a shake, because the phraseology is the same as what you'd overhear at a Food Not Bombs event in the 90s or something. But the intent and the ends are entirely entirely different.
They've taken the vacuum left by the disintegration of the left, and filled it nice and full of some really awful stuff.
Every time I hear one of these Trumpite nutbars go on about the "mainstream media" I have to give my head a shake, because the phraseology is the same as what you'd overhear at a Food Not Bombs event in the 90s or something. But the intent and the ends are entirely entirely different.
They've taken the vacuum left by the disintegration of the left, and filled it nice and full of some really awful stuff.
They will, of course.
No need to make it easy for them to do it. Keep them off large-cast channels, let the FBI watch the small-cast.
No need to make it easy for them to do it. Keep them off large-cast channels, let the FBI watch the small-cast.
75 million people voted for Trump, but 75 million people do not support what happened on Wednesday. A good number of the people that voted for Trump voted for him because they didn’t believe the warnings from the other side about just how unhinged Trump is. And then they got to witness this first hand this week.
There’s still undoubtedly a large group of supporters who believe every word that Trump says, and who he can whip into a frenzy. And that group can absolutely do a lot of damage. But it’s nowhere near 75 million people would would be ok burning democracy down because Trump told them to.
There’s still undoubtedly a large group of supporters who believe every word that Trump says, and who he can whip into a frenzy. And that group can absolutely do a lot of damage. But it’s nowhere near 75 million people would would be ok burning democracy down because Trump told them to.
"A good number of the people that voted for Trump voted for him because they didn’t believe the warnings from the other side about just how unhinged Trump is."
Delusional and brainwashed thinking is what you are displaying
https://www.statista.com/chart/23886/capitol-riot-approval/
Half of republicans support the riot
Delusional and brainwashed thinking is what you are displaying
https://www.statista.com/chart/23886/capitol-riot-approval/
Half of republicans support the riot
Indeed, those people had 4 years of evidence to see what exactly they were voting for. Those 75 million people get no pass from me. Maybe the first time, but not the second.
74* million people didn't endorse a violent mob attacking the capital, or Trump's attempts to overthrow democracy after his loss.
I'm on "the right", and I want all platforms calling for violence and revolution gone. You if (we) ever want to win another election again, disowning the violence and extremism is step one.
Or are you owning the mob that stormed the capital?
I'm on "the right", and I want all platforms calling for violence and revolution gone. You if (we) ever want to win another election again, disowning the violence and extremism is step one.
Or are you owning the mob that stormed the capital?
Everything but appeasement with these people is "playing with fire". 82 million people are tired of it.
With only a slight difference...if there is an all out war, 75 million people show up only to counter 6. My opinion is strictly based on the turnouts I’ve seen at their rallies.
Vs 74 million that have a disproportionate amount of weaponry. A disproportionate amount of law enforcement. A disproportionate amount of the military.
I'd take that group to win any day.
You've got the suburbs and inner city's. Controlling big tech, big media, education institutions, aren't going to help in this scenario.
Oh and lot a degrees. Death by paper cuts maybe?
I'd take that group to win any day.
You've got the suburbs and inner city's. Controlling big tech, big media, education institutions, aren't going to help in this scenario.
Oh and lot a degrees. Death by paper cuts maybe?
And money. You forgot that part.
Good point. Someone has to pay for their disability benefits.
The plural of city is cities.
When you make it harder, or at least less convenient, for that someone, somewhere, to plot something, you're taking concrete steps to improve public safety and deter crime.
Just because plots will occur is not a reason to avoid making it harder for them to succeed.
Just because plots will occur is not a reason to avoid making it harder for them to succeed.
I am really disappointed that it has come to this. In a short few days we have normalized:
1. Twitter picking political winners and losers, where they ban some accounts like Trump but allow others (like the Chinese or Iranian government, like BLM associated rioters, etc.) to post whatever they want.
2. Collusion between different tech companies all adopting the same policy in lock step, with no real choice (no real market competition) for customers as a result since all of them are making identical political choices.
3. Censorship and deplatforming moving down the stack into the operating systems of phones. Let's be honest, Apple's 24 hours was a meaningless gesture that affords Parler no time.
As always, an incident like this is used by those with power to normalize exercising even more power. It happened after 9/11 and it is happening again here now. Glenn Greenwald has a great article on this recent capitol riot (HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25702575) and it highlights the parallels between our reaction to this incident today and the reactions seen post-9/11.
Personally, I think the trend towards discarding free speech principles in favor of heavy censorship will keep continuing. I will not be surprised if Apple and Google start censoring what websites and IP addresses you can access. The answer can't just be "go build your own competitor" when one side with political and technical power is going to keep deplatforming you at lower and lower levels of the stack. It is not feasible for someone to build their own phone or operating system, and even the Android co-founder (!) tried exactly this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Phone)
For there to be choice, the biggest tech companies must be split up. And those whose service depends on network effects must be regulated when their network is above a certain size, because they can be as influential a power broker as a government. Twitter and Facebook (and others) are examples of this, and they can't just be treated like just any other private company. These days I feel like speech in the public sphere only exists if it exists on one of these platforms that are in wide use. We need to regulate them so that they are required to carry all speech that does not explicitly break the law.
1. Twitter picking political winners and losers, where they ban some accounts like Trump but allow others (like the Chinese or Iranian government, like BLM associated rioters, etc.) to post whatever they want.
2. Collusion between different tech companies all adopting the same policy in lock step, with no real choice (no real market competition) for customers as a result since all of them are making identical political choices.
3. Censorship and deplatforming moving down the stack into the operating systems of phones. Let's be honest, Apple's 24 hours was a meaningless gesture that affords Parler no time.
As always, an incident like this is used by those with power to normalize exercising even more power. It happened after 9/11 and it is happening again here now. Glenn Greenwald has a great article on this recent capitol riot (HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25702575) and it highlights the parallels between our reaction to this incident today and the reactions seen post-9/11.
Personally, I think the trend towards discarding free speech principles in favor of heavy censorship will keep continuing. I will not be surprised if Apple and Google start censoring what websites and IP addresses you can access. The answer can't just be "go build your own competitor" when one side with political and technical power is going to keep deplatforming you at lower and lower levels of the stack. It is not feasible for someone to build their own phone or operating system, and even the Android co-founder (!) tried exactly this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Phone)
For there to be choice, the biggest tech companies must be split up. And those whose service depends on network effects must be regulated when their network is above a certain size, because they can be as influential a power broker as a government. Twitter and Facebook (and others) are examples of this, and they can't just be treated like just any other private company. These days I feel like speech in the public sphere only exists if it exists on one of these platforms that are in wide use. We need to regulate them so that they are required to carry all speech that does not explicitly break the law.
> where they ban some accounts like Trump but allow others (like the Chinese or Iranian government, like BLM associated rioters, etc.) to post whatever they want
The removal of the "governments are exempted" rule appears to be beyond just Trump. Twitter notably removed a tweet last night from the Chinese government promoting their abuse of the Uighurs: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-takes-do...
The removal of the "governments are exempted" rule appears to be beyond just Trump. Twitter notably removed a tweet last night from the Chinese government promoting their abuse of the Uighurs: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-takes-do...
1. An Iranian remark about unsafe vaccines was pulled (so not true)
2. If you don't use racial slurs, call for hate or violence, there is no problem for anybody.
3. This is not about censorship in the sense that the government forbids you to speak. This is companies denying 'you' access to a megaphone if you use it to call for violence, hate and use racial slurs.
The idea of 'heavy censorship' is ludicrous to me. Nobody is being censored. You can still say what you want, but nobody has to listen to you.
And if you don't use racial slurs, call for hate and violence, you are totally free to use the platforms.
2. If you don't use racial slurs, call for hate or violence, there is no problem for anybody.
3. This is not about censorship in the sense that the government forbids you to speak. This is companies denying 'you' access to a megaphone if you use it to call for violence, hate and use racial slurs.
The idea of 'heavy censorship' is ludicrous to me. Nobody is being censored. You can still say what you want, but nobody has to listen to you.
And if you don't use racial slurs, call for hate and violence, you are totally free to use the platforms.
> If you don't use racial slurs, call for hate or violence, there is no problem for anybody.
So there's no problem for Ayatollah Chamenei when he calls for "Death To America" at the annual Quds-Day gathering, as long as he doesn't do it on Twitter specifically?
So there's no problem for Ayatollah Chamenei when he calls for "Death To America" at the annual Quds-Day gathering, as long as he doesn't do it on Twitter specifically?
That’s not in any way what I suggest or write.
Let me say it differently: There is an apparent contradiction between your claim and my counter example, unless your claim is qualified with the condition that incitement happening outside of Twitter is not covered.
If that is inaccurate, what precisely do you suggest?
If that is inaccurate, what precisely do you suggest?
What is "hate"? That is such a vague and expansive term that can mean whatever those in power want it to mean. There are activists today that would say I am being "hateful" if I am concerned about the rising trend of gender dysphoria among young teenage women or if I think puberty blockers should not be used. Far-left radicals might call that hate, but everyone else would call it common sense. And that's exactly why we shouldn't have platforms that are large and influential picking what's allowed and disallowed.
I also find this line disingenuous:
> You can still say what you want, but nobody has to listen to you.
OK, if that's the case, why can't people say what they want on Twitter or Parler, and you can just not view the content you disagree with?
I also find this line disingenuous:
> You can still say what you want, but nobody has to listen to you.
OK, if that's the case, why can't people say what they want on Twitter or Parler, and you can just not view the content you disagree with?
> what is hate?
I also find this line disingenuous.
You know what we all mean by it. Don’t make this a silly word game.
Nobody needs to (risk seeing) see calls for hate, violence and racials slurs.
If you don’t want that shit on your platform, ban it. That’s not censorship.
Fine if you build your own gab/4chan/parler. But nobody is required to host you.
Nobody is required to give you a soap box.
Discussions about gender stuff is fine. I disagree strongly but that is not hate. However calling your own position common sense in a debate is also disingenuous and it makes me question your motives.
I also find this line disingenuous.
You know what we all mean by it. Don’t make this a silly word game.
Nobody needs to (risk seeing) see calls for hate, violence and racials slurs.
If you don’t want that shit on your platform, ban it. That’s not censorship.
Fine if you build your own gab/4chan/parler. But nobody is required to host you.
Nobody is required to give you a soap box.
Discussions about gender stuff is fine. I disagree strongly but that is not hate. However calling your own position common sense in a debate is also disingenuous and it makes me question your motives.
Every single player in this saga deserves nothing but contempt. Trump is reprehensible and his supporters are brainwashed. Big Tech conglomerates now openly disenfranchise and deplatform millions of people simultaneously through a coordinated effort. The implications for the future of speech and dissent are terrifying. Just disgusting and depressing in every way. An internet utopianist's nightmare.
I don't want to live in the United States of Trump. I don't want to live in the United States of Dorsey, Bezos, Zuckerberg, and Pichai. The only way out is through sweeping antitrust enforcement against the entire tech industry.
I don't want to live in the United States of Trump. I don't want to live in the United States of Dorsey, Bezos, Zuckerberg, and Pichai. The only way out is through sweeping antitrust enforcement against the entire tech industry.
Parler is openly and proudly hosting violent content.
Their entire claim to fame is hosting the content no one else will host, but the obvious downside is no one will host you if that's your business plan.
Their entire claim to fame is hosting the content no one else will host, but the obvious downside is no one will host you if that's your business plan.
I’m sure yandex, alibaba, tencent and many more smaller us hosters will be happy to host them.
...or whoever hosts 4chan currently.
Facebook and Twitter have been hosting violent content for years and years. Facebook has contributed to mass murder. Twitter to countless suicides. Far more deaths can be attributed to their platforms than some goofy right wing startup. These are facts. Big Tech's scale and power means they can exempt themselves from the rules they create.
Are you really telling me Mark Zuckerberg has less blood on his hands than this John Matze guy? After literal genocides were coordinated via WhatsApp?
Are you really telling me Mark Zuckerberg has less blood on his hands than this John Matze guy? After literal genocides were coordinated via WhatsApp?
No, you have a valid point that social media in general needs consideration from all kinds of angles from mental health impacts to legal requirements of platforms. I think people just don't care at the moment because it's targeting a legitimate bees nest of home grown far right groups which range from comical gravy seals to retired vets. It doesn't invalidate the point that these platforms only took this step when administrations were clearly changing behind the scenes which isn't honestly that surprising if you've seen how they treat foreign nations. So after we finish dealing with the app that's platforming the groups actively announcing plans for an armed round two of Wednesday on Jan 17th we should take a hard look at how much power we yield to technology giants.
True, but the violent content is an extremely small portion of the content on their sites, and they act quickly (and sometimes over-zealously) to remove such content when they find it.
Parler does not, and in fact their lack of moderation was their key selling point.
Parler does not, and in fact their lack of moderation was their key selling point.
So because Twitter and Facebook are larger and have more resources to stamp out illegal activity (which they still do poorly), that means the violence, death, and algorithmic propaganda should be acceptable to host on their platform vs another? Makes no sense.
Rules GAFA creates do not apply to themselves.
Rules GAFA creates do not apply to themselves.
No, that's not what I said and you know it.
Twitter and Facebook don't deliberately host illegal activity, and they stamp it out as best they can. Given that their have hundreds of millions of users in multiple languages posting billions of posts every day, it's a very difficult job and a lot of it requires users to report posts containing illegal activity so they can act on it. (And on that note, I have reported posts on Facebook for illegal or harassing content, and they took down those posts and acted on the offending accounts within 2 hours every time.)
I won't defend FB's or Twitter's algorithms. Based on recent reporting, it appears that internally employees are attempting to change the algorithm so hopefully something will come of that.
Parler and Gab have chosen to market themselves to groups known to engage in violent and illegal activity. Notably, moderate and liberal posts and accounts are immediately deleted or suspended on Parler, while right-leaning posts of any kind and degree of violence remain on those sites indefinitely. This indicates that Parler and Gab have the ability to moderate posts on the basis of content, and simply choose not to.
Twitter and Facebook don't deliberately host illegal activity, and they stamp it out as best they can. Given that their have hundreds of millions of users in multiple languages posting billions of posts every day, it's a very difficult job and a lot of it requires users to report posts containing illegal activity so they can act on it. (And on that note, I have reported posts on Facebook for illegal or harassing content, and they took down those posts and acted on the offending accounts within 2 hours every time.)
I won't defend FB's or Twitter's algorithms. Based on recent reporting, it appears that internally employees are attempting to change the algorithm so hopefully something will come of that.
Parler and Gab have chosen to market themselves to groups known to engage in violent and illegal activity. Notably, moderate and liberal posts and accounts are immediately deleted or suspended on Parler, while right-leaning posts of any kind and degree of violence remain on those sites indefinitely. This indicates that Parler and Gab have the ability to moderate posts on the basis of content, and simply choose not to.
bebopcowboy(1)
I've been seeing this take a lot, generally without counter recommendations. If ejecting extremists from polite society is not an option, then what is?
Some have suggested seeing things from their perspective, and engaging with them in some way. However, it is clear that they do not want to argue in good faith, and have become completely separated from logic and reality.
No action at all is a decision in favor of the status quo, with the obvious outcomes. What, then, is the alternative?
Some have suggested seeing things from their perspective, and engaging with them in some way. However, it is clear that they do not want to argue in good faith, and have become completely separated from logic and reality.
No action at all is a decision in favor of the status quo, with the obvious outcomes. What, then, is the alternative?
Not all of their grievances are crazy. Like asking for an independent audit of votes totals in the contested states. I'm not even American, and I would have loved to see that happen for the sake of transparent elections in the world. Instead we got Gaslighting from the media, and governors that absolutely refused.
Wait, should Amazon be obligated to host an app being used to organize anti-government violence?
The entire backbone of the internet should not be in the hands of less than 5 companies.
AWS is hardly a single vertebra in the entire backbone of the internet. I’ll start worrying when Tier 1 carriers start blocking traffic. Until then, Parler is free to find another hosting solution.
The typically suggested counterproposal is state control of what is functionally a utility.
And while the First Amendment definitely applies to political speech, it does not apply to threats, which are a large part of Parler's stock in trade.
So what's your alternative?
And while the First Amendment definitely applies to political speech, it does not apply to threats, which are a large part of Parler's stock in trade.
So what's your alternative?
That's an answer to a different question. You and I might agree there, but that's not an answer to the question I asked.
[deleted]
Exactly, Centurylink demonstrated a couple months ago they alone could take down and disrupt IPV4 traffic worldwide. I'm starting to wonder if that was a simple configuration mistake or a pre-run.
Yes. If the content is illegal, it's up to the government to censor it.
So, the only content that a company should be able to remove should be illegal content?
Think through that a bit. There is tons of content that we remove from services constantly that isn't illegal.
Think through that a bit. There is tons of content that we remove from services constantly that isn't illegal.
And that’s fine? What if AWS doesn’t like your business and gives you 24 hours to vacate the premises?
I think hosting should be treated like ISPs, which cannot force you out of internet.
I think hosting should be treated like ISPs, which cannot force you out of internet.
I don't see a problem with your question. Yes, if Amazon gives you 24 hours, then you move somewhere else.
What's your concern? Do you think AWS should be required to host violent insurrectionists?
What's your concern? Do you think AWS should be required to host violent insurrectionists?
If you want this to be the case, you're going to need to push for laws to be changed. AWS is absolutely _not_ forced to host code it doesn't want to host.
> his supporters are brainwashed
So, it would seem that there is a problem here. What could possible solutions be? Perhaps attempting to stem the flow of the radicalisation and brainwashing?
> Big Tech conglomerates now openly disenfranchise and deplatform millions of people simultaneously through a coordinated effort.
OK, so you don't like that approach to stopping brainwashing. What is your preferred solution?
Would you like government to instead mandate that web platforms must continue to enable the brainwashing?
So, it would seem that there is a problem here. What could possible solutions be? Perhaps attempting to stem the flow of the radicalisation and brainwashing?
> Big Tech conglomerates now openly disenfranchise and deplatform millions of people simultaneously through a coordinated effort.
OK, so you don't like that approach to stopping brainwashing. What is your preferred solution?
Would you like government to instead mandate that web platforms must continue to enable the brainwashing?
[deleted]
I was ok with Facebook doing it, I'm not ok with a hosting kicking a paying customer out like this.
Hosting companies have been doing this long before the app store or twitter existed. You just didn't hear about it.
I don't see a problem. To me it is similar to the situation where a business is allowed to refuse service to anyone at their own discretion. This has been used to discriminate openly but is still legal. The customers they were refusing to serve were also paying customers.
There has to be a point beyond which some things are simply not allowable. In the past, societies have grown and prospered by codifying sets of standards by which others judge your behavior and then to define and apply sanctions to those who refuse to play by the rules laid down by society. This is how laws came to be passed that allow or restrict behavior widely seen by society as criminal, undesirable, dishonest, etc.
We (any group of citizens or people with a common interest) need to be able to agree upon whether something should be allowed and once that determination is made, codify the law and define appropriate sanctions or punishments for those who choose to color outside the lines.
It is generally accepted that promoting violence, advocating for murder of others because they exercise their right to vote for a different party, providing support to those whose goal is to sow dissent and to divide the citizenry using lies and propaganda, supporting Nazis or other reprehensible characters, etc is simply not copacetic and those who choose that path should face sanctions.
The very least that you should do is to silence the messenger whose goal is to destroy you, your relationships, your society. Use their own message against them to educate everyone about why the things they are promoting are wrong and unacceptable.
Rock and Roll Amazon!
There has to be a point beyond which some things are simply not allowable. In the past, societies have grown and prospered by codifying sets of standards by which others judge your behavior and then to define and apply sanctions to those who refuse to play by the rules laid down by society. This is how laws came to be passed that allow or restrict behavior widely seen by society as criminal, undesirable, dishonest, etc.
We (any group of citizens or people with a common interest) need to be able to agree upon whether something should be allowed and once that determination is made, codify the law and define appropriate sanctions or punishments for those who choose to color outside the lines.
It is generally accepted that promoting violence, advocating for murder of others because they exercise their right to vote for a different party, providing support to those whose goal is to sow dissent and to divide the citizenry using lies and propaganda, supporting Nazis or other reprehensible characters, etc is simply not copacetic and those who choose that path should face sanctions.
The very least that you should do is to silence the messenger whose goal is to destroy you, your relationships, your society. Use their own message against them to educate everyone about why the things they are promoting are wrong and unacceptable.
Rock and Roll Amazon!
hourislate(2)
awak3ning(6)
It likely doesn't stop with Parler. Fox News, OANN and Newsmax also have targets on their backs placed by the incoming regime.
I hope tech companies will also do a purge amongst their employees.
Wow.
Disgusting.
Companies already fire people for ideological differences. Brendan Eich is the obvious example. The reason you don't get "purges" (ie, mass firings) is because people know just how likely they are. You shut your mouth during the "diversity" struggle sessions and similar rubbish. You keep your campaign contributions to 200 dollars or less. You sure as hell don't associate political speech to your PID. You are mindful of cross pollination between databases.
This is how we live now.
This is how we live now.
This is true, and it breaks my heart.
I have so much love for this country and those in it.
The fact the certain people’s views are being censored with the full power of the state + private companies is just sad.
csdude55(1)
Its fascinating how these companies think they are fighting against some radical revolutionaries. All the Trump supporters they are scared to death of are ordinary people all over the country. There are not hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands. There are tens of millions. Right now this looks like a very small set of scared shitless tech companies and politicians that are overreacting when they finally had to meet people outside their bubble. This will hurt these company's businesses unimaginably. Their uptime whent from 5 nines to no nines.
[deleted]
thedieiscast(1)
twoheadedboy(1)
Good. I am neither naive nor stupid enough to have any tolerance for that fascist scum.
Shank them before they shank you.
spamizbad(5)
dukeofdoom(2)
bra-ket(1)
dpeterson(2)
346346346(1)
What happened to Silicon Valley? Just a few years ago, something like this would have triggered libertarian-leaning outrage, especially on HN. Remember the vigorous defenses on here of Backpage? Suddenly everyone’s clutching their pearls and cheering bans that are increasingly broad and unfocused.
If something significant had actual happened to Silicon Valley, you’d have seen his kind of ban four years ago. These bans are big tech playing it safe.
Wait, I'm missing the connection between this and libertarianism. Libertarians vigorously oppose both antitrust and public interference with private companies. A libertarian looks at what AWS is doing and shrugs: the market will sort this out.
[deleted]
A few years ago Silicon Valley was populated with (and run by) people like Brendan Eich. We've spent the intervening time replacing those people - now it's time to finish the job. I wouldn't call it unfocused.
Trump is bad for business
> What happened to Silicon Valley? Just a few years ago, something like this would have triggered libertarian-leaning outrage, especially on HN.
On HN mods banned or pushed away ideological free speech supporters.
On HN mods banned or pushed away ideological free speech supporters.
We ban users who use HN primarily for ideological battle, regardless of their ideology.
I've banned this account. Please stop creating accounts to abuse HN like this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I've banned this account. Please stop creating accounts to abuse HN like this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It has been gone too far.
What a brilliant idea, if this trend continues conservatives soon be forced to move to darknet forums/social networks that doesn't even try to remove content encouraging violence.
Sure, move to the dark web. The extra layer of difficulty one has to go through to connect to dark web services is enough to deter the vast majority of people from ever trying.
Theres now an incentive to make a "one click" tor browser that removes all the friction.
Hope big tech keeps showing their teeth so we can make solutions to make them irrelevant, their power is not real
Hope big tech keeps showing their teeth so we can make solutions to make them irrelevant, their power is not real
Yeah, all the venerated housewives are going to use tor and visit onion links. Listen to yourself, you’re desperate and grasping.
The brave browser already has tor integrated into it. Is it really that much of a stretch?
I guess we don't have to fear venerated housewives storming the capitol anymore then.
The lesson for today:
Anything that you entrust to somebody else is no longer yours.
When a social medium or a cloud service shows that it is more powerful than the sitting President of the US, something is seriously wrong.
Forget Putin. Trump, Biden, and all of Congress are Bezos and Zuckerberg's bitches.
Anything that you entrust to somebody else is no longer yours.
When a social medium or a cloud service shows that it is more powerful than the sitting President of the US, something is seriously wrong.
Forget Putin. Trump, Biden, and all of Congress are Bezos and Zuckerberg's bitches.
>When a social medium or a cloud service shows that it is more powerful than the sitting President of the US, something is seriously wrong.
This line of thinking in the time we're living through is so, so weird to me.
Do people not want to live in a nation that unites to isolate powerful individuals creating chaos in the country, up to and including the president? The idea that the president would (should?) somehow be immune to this is as "un-American" as it gets.
That said, you're right on. If you're intent on building and organizing, don't do it on the private surveillance platforms.
This line of thinking in the time we're living through is so, so weird to me.
Do people not want to live in a nation that unites to isolate powerful individuals creating chaos in the country, up to and including the president? The idea that the president would (should?) somehow be immune to this is as "un-American" as it gets.
That said, you're right on. If you're intent on building and organizing, don't do it on the private surveillance platforms.
Today, it might be Trump. Tomorrow, it might be you.
"First, they came for ...."
Something is seriously out of whack when a President of the United States (any President!) is less powerful than some random company. If we go down that road, let's just dispense with the office of President completely.
"First, they came for ...."
Something is seriously out of whack when a President of the United States (any President!) is less powerful than some random company. If we go down that road, let's just dispense with the office of President completely.
> Something is seriously out of whack when a President of the United States (any President!) is less powerful than some random company.
The President is not less powerful than “some random company”. The company (and likewise every individual) has freedom to act without the President dictating to them on certain matters, but that's the whole point of Constitutionally limited, non-dictatorial government.
The President is not less powerful than “some random company”. The company (and likewise every individual) has freedom to act without the President dictating to them on certain matters, but that's the whole point of Constitutionally limited, non-dictatorial government.
That a company is not doing what he wants doesn't make the company more powerful than the president of the United States, it merely means that he does not hold absolute power.
I have to give AWS some credit for this exchange with the customer. Normally in a situation like this the hosting company will never give you specifics and just ban your account. The fact that they specifically point out which user generated content is specifically breaking ToS is a refreshing change of pace.
It's also hard to argue whataboutism as more and more news and political websites shut down comments and user generated content and easily finding posts from nutjobs gets rarer.
It's also hard to argue whataboutism as more and more news and political websites shut down comments and user generated content and easily finding posts from nutjobs gets rarer.
this will further isolate the part of population which need to hear alternative viewpoints the most.
Yes - I'm sure Parler was where they heard these alternative viewpoints they so needed to hear...
Parler already banned non-right wing content (contrary to its "free speech" claims). If you wanted to de-escalate on parler, you couldn't. You'd get banned.
Did you make this up, or did you read an article that made this up?
Have you even used Parler?
Have you even used Parler?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...
Among others, DevinNunesCow was banned. Lots of liberals and leftists joined. Lots of them got banned without any reason. Hell, a number of journalists were also banned for...unclear reasons.
That's a bad look for an app that claims to support free speech and claims that the solution to speech one doesn't like is simply to counter it. I have no problems with a platform moderating content. But I do find the hypocrisy amusing.
> Have you even used Parler?
Why would this be relevant to my ability to know who or what the platforms moderation policies were?
Among others, DevinNunesCow was banned. Lots of liberals and leftists joined. Lots of them got banned without any reason. Hell, a number of journalists were also banned for...unclear reasons.
That's a bad look for an app that claims to support free speech and claims that the solution to speech one doesn't like is simply to counter it. I have no problems with a platform moderating content. But I do find the hypocrisy amusing.
> Have you even used Parler?
Why would this be relevant to my ability to know who or what the platforms moderation policies were?
Source on that?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...
https://happymag.tv/parler-free-speech-social-media-banning-...
tl;dr a bunch of liberal and leftist people joined Parler back in June when it got popular. They did so intentionally to test how "free-speech" supporting it was and if it would allow people to post left-wing content. They got banned.
https://happymag.tv/parler-free-speech-social-media-banning-...
tl;dr a bunch of liberal and leftist people joined Parler back in June when it got popular. They did so intentionally to test how "free-speech" supporting it was and if it would allow people to post left-wing content. They got banned.
The first article says:
" And, yes, some people are claiming that Parler's quick trigger finger is mostly about shutting down "left" leaning accounts, but as with Twitter's content moderation, I won't say that for sure unless I see some actual evidence to support it."
And the second seems to be a rehash of the first. Most of the substance seems to be based on twitter claims with no verification?
" And, yes, some people are claiming that Parler's quick trigger finger is mostly about shutting down "left" leaning accounts, but as with Twitter's content moderation, I won't say that for sure unless I see some actual evidence to support it."
And the second seems to be a rehash of the first. Most of the substance seems to be based on twitter claims with no verification?
What verification do you need beyond firsthand accounts of multiple journalists who tried to join and were banned? Like that seems about as good as it gets in terms of verification.
Do you think random reporters were conspiring and posting nudity to make Parler look ideologically driven when it banned them (there's irony there too, which we'll ignore for now).
Do you think random reporters were conspiring and posting nudity to make Parler look ideologically driven when it banned them (there's irony there too, which we'll ignore for now).
In the first article one tweeting guy is primarily a comedian but also a writer, but looking at the clickbait he writes he doesn't seem too journalistish:
https://www.huffpost.com/author/tony-posnanski
The other isn't a journalist at all as far as I can tell?
If leftists are categorically banned (the claim was: "If you wanted to de-escalate on parler, you couldn't. You'd get banned"), then surely there is more than these articles, the second of which is a copy of the first which is a mention of two people tweeting about being banned?
I saw the first article back when it first came out and never saw any substantiation, but I didn't keep following it. Is there any significant evidence that leftists are all banned?
The other isn't a journalist at all as far as I can tell?
If leftists are categorically banned (the claim was: "If you wanted to de-escalate on parler, you couldn't. You'd get banned"), then surely there is more than these articles, the second of which is a copy of the first which is a mention of two people tweeting about being banned?
I saw the first article back when it first came out and never saw any substantiation, but I didn't keep following it. Is there any significant evidence that leftists are all banned?
Are the floodgates open?
Anyone who thinks this is a line too far really needs to start reading these sites before they get deplatformed. There are constant, intense calls for violence (in Minecraft), photoshopped porn of Hunter Biden and just a regular stream of dog whistles and keywords that cannot be interpreted any other way.
There is no loss here. The right has collectively lost its mind and these sites are pure sewer.
On top of this, the sites are ironically so anti-left that you are banned instantly if you even tried to discuss something in good faith. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so terrible.
There is no loss here. The right has collectively lost its mind and these sites are pure sewer.
On top of this, the sites are ironically so anti-left that you are banned instantly if you even tried to discuss something in good faith. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so terrible.
> The right has collectively lost its mind and these sites are pure sewer.
Until now, only the most extreme positions were forced into "the sewer". Expelling Trump from Twitter will force him and tens of millions of his followers onto one of these platforms. The sewer is going to overflow.
Until now, only the most extreme positions were forced into "the sewer". Expelling Trump from Twitter will force him and tens of millions of his followers onto one of these platforms. The sewer is going to overflow.
[deleted]
We should understand that all of this so called "censoring" is happening in/on private property, and not actually censoring. The owners of property have every right to set the conditions of use, if any, for any.
If Trump, et al, want to pretend that these private properties are actually essential, and the owners of them don't have the right to set whatever conditions, perhaps they should nationalize them, and auction them off to an acceptable group of sole US citizen bidders who agree to whatever standard.
...or the US could go back to respect property rights, despite it supposedly being out of fashion these days.
If Trump, et al, want to pretend that these private properties are actually essential, and the owners of them don't have the right to set whatever conditions, perhaps they should nationalize them, and auction them off to an acceptable group of sole US citizen bidders who agree to whatever standard.
...or the US could go back to respect property rights, despite it supposedly being out of fashion these days.
I'm sure John Stuart Mill will be scraped from the internet soon but it's still worthy of protection:
> Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.
> Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.
It’s kind if funny and ironic seeing arguments like ”they need moderation”, ”we can’t allow violent extremists yadda yaddah...”
Yet this was never a problem and still isn’t anywhere else except in the context of Trump supporters. Radical left wing terrorist groups and openly violent people are directly getting funded and praised by the owners of these platforms not only tolerated.
Yet this was never a problem and still isn’t anywhere else except in the context of Trump supporters. Radical left wing terrorist groups and openly violent people are directly getting funded and praised by the owners of these platforms not only tolerated.
Annoyingly, the main reason Parler (and similar services) became so extreme was because the mainstream communities, organizations and platforms kept censoring conservative thought and thus driving them elsewhere. Then you end up with an echo chamber formed partially around the dislike of an outgroup... Radicalization inevitably follows.
If people and institutions had just been more tolerant about allowing conservatives to make themselves heard the polarization and alternative reality could have been avoided (as conservatives would have been much more exposed to non-conservative ideas and counterarguments rather than entering a purity spiral. The opposite direction purity spirals of the american right and left are scary).
Banning Parler is just a bandaid, the end of this route is the banning of uncensored and unmonitored communication between people.
If people and institutions had just been more tolerant about allowing conservatives to make themselves heard the polarization and alternative reality could have been avoided (as conservatives would have been much more exposed to non-conservative ideas and counterarguments rather than entering a purity spiral. The opposite direction purity spirals of the american right and left are scary).
Banning Parler is just a bandaid, the end of this route is the banning of uncensored and unmonitored communication between people.
> Annoyingly, the main reason Parler (and similar services) became so extreme was because the mainstream communities, organizations and platforms kept censoring conservative thought and thus driving them elsewhere.
I would argue the opposite: the reason those sites became so extreme is that the mainstream sites restrict so little but the very extreme, that the population looking to escape the mainstream sites is very extreme.
I would argue the opposite: the reason those sites became so extreme is that the mainstream sites restrict so little but the very extreme, that the population looking to escape the mainstream sites is very extreme.
It's very surreal watching this happen.
CloudFlare will be next, and they've already set the precedent that they will cease to serve websites that are "detrimental to society". Followed by Digital Ocean, Amazon, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T.
For those of you who championed XKCD #1357 at every opportunity, congratulations! You've won. For a short time. The consequences of censorship will be dire.
I'm no fan of Sagan, but he was right what he saw here:
> I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; [...]
CloudFlare will be next, and they've already set the precedent that they will cease to serve websites that are "detrimental to society". Followed by Digital Ocean, Amazon, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T.
For those of you who championed XKCD #1357 at every opportunity, congratulations! You've won. For a short time. The consequences of censorship will be dire.
I'm no fan of Sagan, but he was right what he saw here:
> I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; [...]
Wow that Sagan quote is prescient. Where is that from?
And yes it is deeply concerning that an infrastructure service like Cloudflare is becoming increasingly political. This is what happens when companies stop acting neutrally and allow themselves to be influenced by activist employees or outside social/political pressure. The precedent they set will probably extend to all the other infrastructure players.
And this is why it is more crucial now than ever for us to enforce antitrust laws and split up and/or regulate powerful companies. They are acting government agencies simply shielded from the same responsibilities because they are technically private.
And yes it is deeply concerning that an infrastructure service like Cloudflare is becoming increasingly political. This is what happens when companies stop acting neutrally and allow themselves to be influenced by activist employees or outside social/political pressure. The precedent they set will probably extend to all the other infrastructure players.
And this is why it is more crucial now than ever for us to enforce antitrust laws and split up and/or regulate powerful companies. They are acting government agencies simply shielded from the same responsibilities because they are technically private.
I often see the meme that modern technology has made free speech too dangerous.
I wonder how has modern technology made censorship safer?
I wonder how has modern technology made censorship safer?
[deleted]
It's funny to me. Big words about censorship and dire consequences, but I see it as a sane correction of the current wild-west that is untenable.
Finally, some big players kick off bad-faith actors from their platforms. People that call for violence and hate.
There is no need for a platform in this world where you can use racial slurs, call for hate and violence.
Finally, some big players kick off bad-faith actors from their platforms. People that call for violence and hate.
There is no need for a platform in this world where you can use racial slurs, call for hate and violence.
Relevant to this: Amazon has told Parler it's pulling the plug on its hosting midnight pacific time Monday[0].
I think big tech regulation might become the new bipartisan topic de jour as a result of this. Ironically, given past positions of the Supreme Court[1], I really don't see private companies being forced to host whatever content people what them to being a thing at any point in the near future, so it seems as though they'd probably be against anything conservatives have been demanding for as of recent.
This might be the rye talking at this point, but one of the preceding events to the civil war was violence in the house of congress[2]. Don't need to tell anyone about Wednesday's violence, but that did cause us to miss the almost-fist-fight on Tuesday[3]. I don't think we're headed towards civil war yet, but I think how the people that instigated the recent events are handled, by the public and criminally, will dictate that.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
[2] https://www.history.com/news/charles-sumner-caning-cilley-du...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/07/congress-fi...
I think big tech regulation might become the new bipartisan topic de jour as a result of this. Ironically, given past positions of the Supreme Court[1], I really don't see private companies being forced to host whatever content people what them to being a thing at any point in the near future, so it seems as though they'd probably be against anything conservatives have been demanding for as of recent.
This might be the rye talking at this point, but one of the preceding events to the civil war was violence in the house of congress[2]. Don't need to tell anyone about Wednesday's violence, but that did cause us to miss the almost-fist-fight on Tuesday[3]. I don't think we're headed towards civil war yet, but I think how the people that instigated the recent events are handled, by the public and criminally, will dictate that.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
[2] https://www.history.com/news/charles-sumner-caning-cilley-du...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/07/congress-fi...
Next step: your internet provider will not resolve parler.com.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a socialist.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a socialist.
First they came for the fascists and I was like "Ok, cool, they attempted to violently overthrow the government, rather poorly, and I'm ok with you discontinuing business with them"
Ironic since the "they" in the original work was literally the facists/nazis.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
I'm not sure who you think fascists are, but fascists are doing fine when they are represented in parliament instead of forced underground.
We saw it in many European countries, where far right organisations participate in elections, get their 5% of seats, and everybody's happy.
We saw it in many European countries, where far right organisations participate in elections, get their 5% of seats, and everybody's happy.
More like "First they came for the violent criminals"
I don't see how Parler are "violent criminals".
I don't even see how Trump is violent criminal.
I don't even see how Trump is violent criminal.
First they came for the National Socialists.
Parler failed to moderate to the standards of Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter, oh my
It's not their platform, they don't get to see how it is moderated.
We do, the people. You know those things we pass called laws? Yeah that determines how moderation needs to happen. Not other companies.
We do, the people. You know those things we pass called laws? Yeah that determines how moderation needs to happen. Not other companies.
Uh no, companies very much get decide how to moderate the platforms they own.
What law is it that prevents Amazon from booting Parler exactly?
What law is it that prevents Amazon from booting Parler exactly?
Exactly, so Parler gets to decide how Parler is moderated.
AWS gets to decide if Parler is violating the law, and remove it for that reason.
If you want to introduce other reasons... well, I'd wager you haven't thought through the consequences of that.
AWS gets to decide if Parler is violating the law, and remove it for that reason.
If you want to introduce other reasons... well, I'd wager you haven't thought through the consequences of that.
AWS doesnt need to wait for a service to violate the law to remove it.
They have a TOS and policies like any other company. You can get kicked off AWS for much less than hosting a service that willfully turns a blind eye to domestic terrorism.
What existing law do you think prevents Amazon from removing Parler?
They have a TOS and policies like any other company. You can get kicked off AWS for much less than hosting a service that willfully turns a blind eye to domestic terrorism.
What existing law do you think prevents Amazon from removing Parler?
Would you like AWS to moderate every line you write on HN?
Or how about this.
Would you like the CEO of Parler to be telling you what you are allowed to write?
That is the consequence of what you are saying.
Parler moderating Parler; Twitter moderating Twitter; are very different from AWS moderating Parler or Twitter.
Or how about this.
Would you like the CEO of Parler to be telling you what you are allowed to write?
That is the consequence of what you are saying.
Parler moderating Parler; Twitter moderating Twitter; are very different from AWS moderating Parler or Twitter.
Thats not whats happening here though is it?
Parler is violating the terms of service, AWS is asking for minimal level of moderation to avoid violating those terms, and they are refusing.
And the CEO of parler does tell people what they are allowed to write on Parler they remove so-called "leftist" content all the time.
If im running a website or service, why shouldnt I be allowed to remove content from it? Wouldnt a law thats preventing me from removing that content actually be a violation of my right to free speech?
Parler is violating the terms of service, AWS is asking for minimal level of moderation to avoid violating those terms, and they are refusing.
And the CEO of parler does tell people what they are allowed to write on Parler they remove so-called "leftist" content all the time.
If im running a website or service, why shouldnt I be allowed to remove content from it? Wouldnt a law thats preventing me from removing that content actually be a violation of my right to free speech?
Great! lets have ISPs start blocking these sites. I am looking at you Verizon and ATT.
I can't believe people are cheering this on.
Not with a bang, or a whimper, but a celebration!
You just proved The Great Firewall is the right choice.
I don't have a problem with Amazon kicking this service out, but I do wonder how far it could go. What if the power company tell the individuals, "we do not wish to supply electricity to you". Or their phone company.
It would be a bit like China's social score and the banishment of people deemed bad by the system, but with an interesting corporate twist. Will there be a Trump-loving phone company to service these people, powered by Trump-loving electricity supplier? It'd be the libertarian wet dream.
And what if it starts hitting people I'm sympathetic with? PayPal froze WikiLeaks' account and I found that to be a cowardly action by them.
It would be a bit like China's social score and the banishment of people deemed bad by the system, but with an interesting corporate twist. Will there be a Trump-loving phone company to service these people, powered by Trump-loving electricity supplier? It'd be the libertarian wet dream.
And what if it starts hitting people I'm sympathetic with? PayPal froze WikiLeaks' account and I found that to be a cowardly action by them.
/pol/ pasta:
imagine spending the better part of the last 5 years having your brain and ego melted by uninterrupted /pol/ exposure, flying to washington in the middle of a pandemic to hear trump whine about oprah and mike pence at a rally, marching up to congress on his orders to smash shit and then mill around aimlessly
you go home and hear that biden won anyway and all of your favorite twitter news sources named like Patriot Newsman Of the West with avatars of roman statues have posted your photo online and are labeling you a "gay communist antifa actor." then the next day the god emperor you pasted into warhammer memes puts out a video cucking himself and bending the knee. "i'm sorry, those were heinous acts! p-please let me tweet again jack!!" you can't leave dc because the airlines have dubbed you a flight risk. you can't stay because the cops are actively looking for you after one of their own died. your roommate at the only hotel that would accept you is a guy named based_kekistani1488 who wants to show you his goblin slayer torrents. the sun is going down and you're getting cold.
imagine spending the better part of the last 5 years having your brain and ego melted by uninterrupted /pol/ exposure, flying to washington in the middle of a pandemic to hear trump whine about oprah and mike pence at a rally, marching up to congress on his orders to smash shit and then mill around aimlessly
you go home and hear that biden won anyway and all of your favorite twitter news sources named like Patriot Newsman Of the West with avatars of roman statues have posted your photo online and are labeling you a "gay communist antifa actor." then the next day the god emperor you pasted into warhammer memes puts out a video cucking himself and bending the knee. "i'm sorry, those were heinous acts! p-please let me tweet again jack!!" you can't leave dc because the airlines have dubbed you a flight risk. you can't stay because the cops are actively looking for you after one of their own died. your roommate at the only hotel that would accept you is a guy named based_kekistani1488 who wants to show you his goblin slayer torrents. the sun is going down and you're getting cold.
If you are in any way competing with Amazon, you should think twice before hosting on AWS.
“Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms. It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service,” the email reads. “[W]e cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others,” the email reads. “Because Parler cannot comply with our terms of service and poses a very real risk to public safety, we plan to suspend Parler’s account effective Sunday, January 10th, at 11:59PM PST.”
If Amazon and Parker havnt commented, how can an email be quoted?
Is Amazon monitoring the content of all the services on its platform?
While my first impression is that this looks like the US turning into China, the fact that large scale private industry is doing this in apparent coordination with political forces make it seem more fascist than commie. Maybe Trump really did usher fascism into the US. What a pity.
If Amazon and Parker havnt commented, how can an email be quoted?
Is Amazon monitoring the content of all the services on its platform?
While my first impression is that this looks like the US turning into China, the fact that large scale private industry is doing this in apparent coordination with political forces make it seem more fascist than commie. Maybe Trump really did usher fascism into the US. What a pity.
> If Amazon and Parker havnt commented, how can an email be quoted?
They haven't commented to Buzzfeed. C'mon.
> Is Amazon monitoring the content of all the services on its platform?
They take reports. https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/repor...
"The AWS Abuse team can assist you when AWS resources are used to engage in the following types of abusive behavior: Hosting objectionable or copyrighted content: You have evidence that AWS resources are used to host or distribute illegal content or distribute copyrighted content without the consent of the copyright holder."
They haven't commented to Buzzfeed. C'mon.
> Is Amazon monitoring the content of all the services on its platform?
They take reports. https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/repor...
"The AWS Abuse team can assist you when AWS resources are used to engage in the following types of abusive behavior: Hosting objectionable or copyrighted content: You have evidence that AWS resources are used to host or distribute illegal content or distribute copyrighted content without the consent of the copyright holder."
Do you think they actually read and spend time on what is written into a complaint form? That’s amazing.
I've reported a number of phishing sites via this form, with good success rates. I've also had a report forwarded to me when one of our EC2 instances was compromised.
Yes, AWS acts on these abuse reports.
Yes, AWS acts on these abuse reports.
I see a lot of people here saying, "protecting free speech is important, but ... " citing a long list of exceptions for really ugly things.
You don't get it.
Free speech isn't about protecting viewpoints that you like or find acceptable. It's about protecting ALL speech, especially including the one that you don't like.
Yes. Even incitement of violence, genocide, etc. In a society where all speech is permitted, extremist viewpoints will be naturally marginalized and lose power.
You don't get it.
Free speech isn't about protecting viewpoints that you like or find acceptable. It's about protecting ALL speech, especially including the one that you don't like.
Yes. Even incitement of violence, genocide, etc. In a society where all speech is permitted, extremist viewpoints will be naturally marginalized and lose power.
For a company trying to avoid censorship, they are hard to contact. I have been trying since yesterday to contact them about others they could use.
Is anyone else suspicious of the fact that Twitter is using AWS and has teamed up with AWS? Could there be a paper trail there? This could be an example of 2nd degree anti-competitive behavior.
Media wants to tell you how to think. Now it wants to take on the power to silence voices that run counter to its messaging. This is the case irrespective of whether there were incitement to violence.
you deserve it far far far far far far far far far far far far more than most but also oh shit
When I suggested AWS would do this yesterday, I was downvoted like crazy. Same with the Apple/Parler ban.
What reality are people living in? Because whatever it is, your ability to predict actions in the real world is poor.
What reality are people living in? Because whatever it is, your ability to predict actions in the real world is poor.
The tech monopolies will go to any length and use any excuse to protect their monopoly power. Looks like they're now in the backscratching business.
This is just a pretext for them to do what they would have found an excuse to do anyway.
This is just a pretext for them to do what they would have found an excuse to do anyway.
The degree to which people here are willing to support these actions is quite unsettling, now corporates are judges and people love it.
So if the argument is around lack of moderation, where can an E2E encryption service exist in the cloud? They’re literally unable to moderate in a meaningful way.
That sort of service can justifiably say "we're not aware of the infringing content". AWS indicates in their email quoted in the article that Parler is aware, but slow and/or unwilling to take action.
> This is further demonstrated by the fact that you still have not taken down much of the content that we’ve sent you.
> This is further demonstrated by the fact that you still have not taken down much of the content that we’ve sent you.
And then they’re given several screenshots of E2E encrypted chat rooms and they say they’re unable to take action on it because they don’t know the ID of those rooms, it’s just basic data in and out of their servers.
And then they are legislated against because ‘they could be terrorists planning things and Signal or whomever won’t do anything about it’
And then they are legislated against because ‘they could be terrorists planning things and Signal or whomever won’t do anything about it’
No worries guys, they can just develop their own os! With their own app store! And when hosting companies ban them they can just write a new ip version and host it on their own internet.
Seriously, apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook are monopolies. And they are behaving in an extremely anticompetitive manner. They should be forced to operate like utilities, or get broken up. Utilities should not get to ban paying customers without a court order.
Seriously, apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook are monopolies. And they are behaving in an extremely anticompetitive manner. They should be forced to operate like utilities, or get broken up. Utilities should not get to ban paying customers without a court order.
This move will lead to new innovations,say a new network service designed that will be bulletproof against the big cloud providers or even the pipe providers(AT&T,etc), something like P2P or dark net.
I'm expecting telecom vendors to chime in to cut off the network for the voices they do not like.
I used to think telegram/signal are designed for some other countries, never thought it could be useful for USA where free speech is guaranteed by the constitutions, no more.
I'm expecting telecom vendors to chime in to cut off the network for the voices they do not like.
I used to think telegram/signal are designed for some other countries, never thought it could be useful for USA where free speech is guaranteed by the constitutions, no more.
People love this and it honestly makes me sick. “Because what I don’t like is being removed I’m happy” —- Now what happens when something you DO like is removed?
It will be like DMCA but for political content. They start with the obvious abuse and then whack anything they don’t like with it. AND YOU’RE ROLLING OUT THE WELCOME MAT!
It will be like DMCA but for political content. They start with the obvious abuse and then whack anything they don’t like with it. AND YOU’RE ROLLING OUT THE WELCOME MAT!
The pendulum will swing and it'll come back to bite those cheering this on. It always happens.
If we look at how communist countries have evolved historically the most likely thing to happen is that someone who talks the talk gets into the highest position and then purges both the right and the left, retaining only yes-men willing to go along with anything. Then it collapses into dysfunction as important information doesn't reach leadership, because no one dares to suggest they are wrong. Finally it evolves into a more typical loose dictatorship, where contrary information is allowed "within reason" as long as you don't commit Lèse-majesté.
[deleted]
This is a terrible idea. It says that "you don't need to break the law to be punished". This give the big tech companies quasi judicial powers where the grounds for punishments are arbitrary and subjective. Only the courts should be able to decide this type of thing, and I hope Parler sues Apple, Google, and especially Amazon for billions of dollars.
What if tomorrow they decide to ban and de-platform an app with 5 million users because they didn't like the color scheme the app was using (or their rising stock price...)? It opens the dangerous door to anti-competitive behavior. Today it's Parler, and tomorrow it will be you. This is a double edged sword that will cut everyone besides the big tech companies. We must not allow this action to go unchallenged.
What if tomorrow they decide to ban and de-platform an app with 5 million users because they didn't like the color scheme the app was using (or their rising stock price...)? It opens the dangerous door to anti-competitive behavior. Today it's Parler, and tomorrow it will be you. This is a double edged sword that will cut everyone besides the big tech companies. We must not allow this action to go unchallenged.
How is "companies stop doing business with other companies they don't think it's in their interest doing business with" a new thing that now the door is being opened for? It's happening all the time, and the right to do so is reserved in pretty much any terms of service document ever. It's truly weird how some seem to now see this as some new development one suddenly has to worry about.
No, you are so totally wrong. When I want to book an appointment with my doctor, I use an app hosted on Amazon. When I am in lockdown and I want to ask a friend to bring me food, I use WhatApp. When I need to request a tax refund, I use the Tax Dept app that is hosted on Google Cloud. These are not companies anymore - they are critical civil infrastructure. If you don't believe me, just try not using any of them for a month. Imagine if the water company shuts off all service to your house and there is no alternative. They are a private company - should they have no responsibility to give you water or sewage. Such a narrow view...
Parler is a cesspool and I'm not sorry to see it banned. The Amazon cost-benefit calculation must have been trivial (minute AWS payments compared to talent and reputation costs of hosting Parler).
Yet, this also validates the choice of competing retail chains to not host on AWS. Sure we can excuse this use of power by Amazon, but it's not impossible to see Amazon abuse it - there's no transparent criteria offered by Amazon* and no way to appeal. Best not to give them the temptation to use this power for bad.
* E: Yea, they give out a criteria in the article, but for all we know there'll be another criteria for someone else when it suits them. I think one could make a balanced way which would achieve the same result (banning Parler), as quickly, without giving Amazon too much power.
Yet, this also validates the choice of competing retail chains to not host on AWS. Sure we can excuse this use of power by Amazon, but it's not impossible to see Amazon abuse it - there's no transparent criteria offered by Amazon* and no way to appeal. Best not to give them the temptation to use this power for bad.
* E: Yea, they give out a criteria in the article, but for all we know there'll be another criteria for someone else when it suits them. I think one could make a balanced way which would achieve the same result (banning Parler), as quickly, without giving Amazon too much power.
And several years ago when Putin was trying to ban Telegram Amazon was the one providing servers and ips to prevent it.
So the only way to be safe from censorship is to use services hosted in an unfriendly/uninterested country. Maybe they need to open accounts in Russian vk social network instead of Parler:)
Jokes aside this is one of the reasons why it is important to have multiple truly independent countries, because if you have just one government for whole earth, then someone like Snowden will not have any safe place.
So the only way to be safe from censorship is to use services hosted in an unfriendly/uninterested country. Maybe they need to open accounts in Russian vk social network instead of Parler:)
Jokes aside this is one of the reasons why it is important to have multiple truly independent countries, because if you have just one government for whole earth, then someone like Snowden will not have any safe place.
When powerful people see the most powerful get overrun, things can happen quickly. I wonder of Bezos lies awake at night worrying about an angry mob.
If he was worried about an angry mob, wouldn’t he try to not anger them?
More like powerful stand to lose a lot from the fall of the status quo. Revolutions are not kind to the existing elites.
Even elites that helped French revolutionaries often ended up on guillotine, so... best course of action is to act in order to preserve status quo. Especially if you're currently profiting from it extraordinarily.
Even elites that helped French revolutionaries often ended up on guillotine, so... best course of action is to act in order to preserve status quo. Especially if you're currently profiting from it extraordinarily.
If being a billionaire doesn't allow you give the finger to the stupidest people in America, what's the point?
How about we look into censoring family environment? Why not to take kids away from the family and transfer them to the state or re-education camp so they are not exposed to the racist parents? Where's the end to it?
PS I came from Soviet Union and this is not a theoretical idea.
PS I came from Soviet Union and this is not a theoretical idea.
In the US, we split the difference and take the kids for a few hours five days a week, where we try our damnedest to break the cycle of racism as part of general education.
This is smart from a strategic standpoint. Parler is highly likely to be where the next terrorist announces their crime and there will never be a more volatile time this year for that to happen (fingers crossed). Amazon gets to dodge that bad PR nearly for free.
It’s garbage from a civil rights standpoint though lol
It’s garbage from a civil rights standpoint though lol
Nah, terrorists announce shit on Twitter.
Lets consider this possibility: if there was systemic voter fraud [1] then this is again another action done to supress the information and prevent from more people learning about the possible voter fraud. Not only are social media platforms supressing voices, there is also the media which has the option to decide what to cover and what not to. These are the primary ways people stay informed.
Note: not an American.
[1]: https://hereistheevidence.com/
Note: not an American.
[1]: https://hereistheevidence.com/
Take this garbage out of the way. There was no systemic fraud. You are peddling lies.
A hypothesis is not a lie.
It's about as much of a hypothesis as it is to say that my TV works because there's tiny elves in the electronics or that unicorns are real.
We're not kids to be arguing over silly examples like this.
No, but losing 60-something court cases, many of those with judges appointed by the very same administration fighting this, with many of the attorneys in questions getting their credentials questioned to the border of disbarrment... yeah, I have nothing else to add.
>losing 60-something court cases
This is misinformation. They didn't lose 60-something cases, the vast majority of cases were rejected for lack of standing, i.e. the courts refused to even hear them.
This is misinformation. They didn't lose 60-something cases, the vast majority of cases were rejected for lack of standing, i.e. the courts refused to even hear them.
Would you prefer "not winning 60+ lawsuits" as a more correct wording?
IMHO being thrown out for lack of standing is either pretty much "loosing" (bringing an argument for why you have standing and the court rejecting it, in cases where it isn't clear that's certainly a valid thing to do) or worse (not even managing to file a proper lawsuit - although not caring for that makes it of course easier to spam an impressive-sounding number). And it's not the like the cases where they weren't rejected for lack of standing generally went much better?
IMHO being thrown out for lack of standing is either pretty much "loosing" (bringing an argument for why you have standing and the court rejecting it, in cases where it isn't clear that's certainly a valid thing to do) or worse (not even managing to file a proper lawsuit - although not caring for that makes it of course easier to spam an impressive-sounding number). And it's not the like the cases where they weren't rejected for lack of standing generally went much better?
The lies you're repeating have now gotten people killed.
The supression of discussion has caused creation of echo chambers which lead to people being killed.
___
I do not advocate violence.
___
I do not advocate violence.
Man, that site has pretty flimsy "evidence". Many of them are just links to news articles where people assert things. A news article from someone claiming between 120K to 305K votes might be faked is presented on the site as "expert witness" as a source for the "evidence" that "300K votes were faked"...
There are over a thousand links and not all of it is strong evidence but they surely suggest that there were irregularities in more than one location.
There are sworn affidavits under penalty of prejury [1], video showing dead people voting [2], votes in the trash [3], video evience [4] just to give you some examples.
[1]: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-11/Miller_D... [2]: https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1324237476186202113 [3]: https://lbry.tv/@CapitalistChile:0/shredded-ballots-have-bee... [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ0xDWhWUxk
There are sworn affidavits under penalty of prejury [1], video showing dead people voting [2], votes in the trash [3], video evience [4] just to give you some examples.
[1]: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-11/Miller_D... [2]: https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1324237476186202113 [3]: https://lbry.tv/@CapitalistChile:0/shredded-ballots-have-bee... [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ0xDWhWUxk
What you are doing here is a classic Gish Gallop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
You're presenting a large number of unsourced claims with weak or non existent evidence that take time and effort to track down and debunk. In these sorts of situations the burden of proof is on the accuser and you aren't even close to that standard.
Let's just pick "video showing dead people voting" from above. It ignores the fact that two different people can have the same name. And often this happens in the same family with people living at the same address. In an election with over 150M votes cast, there is every reason to believe there would be plenty of instances of daughters with the same names as their dead mothers casting votes. There's no evidence that this isn't what happened here.
It's also worth noting that Trump and his associates brought a lot of the so called "evidence" to court and were nearly laughed out of court almost every single time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
You're presenting a large number of unsourced claims with weak or non existent evidence that take time and effort to track down and debunk. In these sorts of situations the burden of proof is on the accuser and you aren't even close to that standard.
Let's just pick "video showing dead people voting" from above. It ignores the fact that two different people can have the same name. And often this happens in the same family with people living at the same address. In an election with over 150M votes cast, there is every reason to believe there would be plenty of instances of daughters with the same names as their dead mothers casting votes. There's no evidence that this isn't what happened here.
It's also worth noting that Trump and his associates brought a lot of the so called "evidence" to court and were nearly laughed out of court almost every single time.
Present few evidence - not widespread enough, "okay there were a few irregularities"
Present a large number of evidence - Gish Gallop
unsourced claims - Links and sources speak for themselves, it is not as if I have manufacured them out of thin air.
> burden of proof is on the accuser and you aren't even close to that standard
If me presenting over a thousand links with lets say 90% weak evidence doesnt come close to a standard I dont know what will.
> It's also worth noting that Trump and his associates brought a lot of the so called "evidence" to court and were nearly laughed out of court almost every single time.
You are right about this one. Though as far as I know, were not dismissed on the matter of the evidence itslef but on precedent, issues regarding the timing and other matters.
Present a large number of evidence - Gish Gallop
unsourced claims - Links and sources speak for themselves, it is not as if I have manufacured them out of thin air.
> burden of proof is on the accuser and you aren't even close to that standard
If me presenting over a thousand links with lets say 90% weak evidence doesnt come close to a standard I dont know what will.
> It's also worth noting that Trump and his associates brought a lot of the so called "evidence" to court and were nearly laughed out of court almost every single time.
You are right about this one. Though as far as I know, were not dismissed on the matter of the evidence itslef but on precedent, issues regarding the timing and other matters.
It's not a Gish Gallop because you've presented "a large number of evidence". It's a Gish Gallop because you've presented a large number of claims (you called out 4 specifically) each of which has extremely thin evidence and, in fact, when someone takes the time to investigate it, it's fairly easily debunked.
I already did #2.
For #1 this is information on Wikipedia about how the underlying data used by the professor was not sufficient to support his conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_J._Miller#2020_Election
For #3 here is a reuters post debunking the assertion:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-oklahoma/fact-c...
For #4 here is a post from some Georgia press (the assertion was about fraud in Georgia) debunking the assertions:
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/fact...
I already did #2.
For #1 this is information on Wikipedia about how the underlying data used by the professor was not sufficient to support his conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_J._Miller#2020_Election
For #3 here is a reuters post debunking the assertion:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-oklahoma/fact-c...
For #4 here is a post from some Georgia press (the assertion was about fraud in Georgia) debunking the assertions:
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/fact...
[deleted]
condomhacker(1)
Everything we're witnessing is a result of the slavers prepping for the collapse of the world reserve fiat global enslavement system, and their attempts to maintain dominion throughout. The permissionless, decentralized, alternatives, aren't part of the same freefall as all the perpetually inflated fiat currencies, and are problem for them. https://fiatmarketcap.com/
They must convince us to accept the violations of speech, press, privacy, property, and arms, in order to deal with cryptocurrencies. If we're able to communicate, we're able to use cryptocurrencies. This is why we're being inundated with endless pretenses.. so that we'll be cowards willing to exchange essential liberties for the illusion of security.
They must convince us to accept the violations of speech, press, privacy, property, and arms, in order to deal with cryptocurrencies. If we're able to communicate, we're able to use cryptocurrencies. This is why we're being inundated with endless pretenses.. so that we'll be cowards willing to exchange essential liberties for the illusion of security.
This is gibberish.
[deleted]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993&p=2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993&p=3
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993&p=4
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993&p=5 ... and so on.
While I have you: if you're going to comment on this thread, or anywhere on HN, make sure you're up on the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. This is a site for curious, thoughtful conversation. It is not a site for political battle, snark, or name-calling. Why? Because those things destroy curious, thoughtful conversation.
This is one of those moments where we can either raise the bar or slide deeper into the hell realms. We're therefore raising the bar. Please use the site as intended: curious, thoughtful conversation, and be kind, regardless of how wrong others are or you feel they are. If you can't do that (understandable, given what we're all living through), don't post until you can.
I'm banning significantly more accounts right now, especially those that have built up a track record of abusing HN. The bans are not based on political position, as anyone with the fortitude to slog through my posting history can see. No matter how right you are or feel you are, make sure you know what the rules are and follow them. In particular, do not use HN primarily for political or ideological battle. Not only is that not what the site is for, it destroys what it is for, so we have no choice but to ban accounts that do it—and so we are: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....