[HN Gopher] How Silicon Valley destroyed Parler ___________________________________________________________________ How Silicon Valley destroyed Parler Author : amadeuspagel Score : 669 points Date : 2021-01-12 14:55 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (greenwald.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (greenwald.substack.com) | sershe wrote: | As someone who makes a boatload of money in large part because | tech companies are not regulated, I have to say - it's time to | regulate large platforms like utilities. You cannot cut someone's | power because they broadcast a death threat from their house. All | you can do is sue (if that). It should be the same with | oligopolistic cloud and social media platforms, since "breaking | them up" doesn't really seem workable. | dragonwriter wrote: | > it's time to regulate large platforms like utilities. | | Not if we aren't first regulating lower levels of the internet | infrastructure that way. Starting with ISPs, DNS providerd, | etc. And even if we were doing the lower levels, it still | wouldn't be, but we might relieve the perceived need. | | What amount to algorithmically assembled personalized | magazines, like all the newsfeed-focussed social media outlets, | are pretty much the least utility-like and most-media-outlet | like (hence, the name) parts of the internet, and regulating | them like state-directed utilities makes as much sense as | treating the New York Times as a state-directed utility. | chrischattin wrote: | I agree 100%. The mega-tech corporations enjoy legal protection | as a platform vs a publisher. They are clearly taking an | opinionated stance re content moderation and should lose their | legal protections as a platform and become liable for content | like a traditional publisher. | vladTheInhaler wrote: | "If you said "Once a company like that starts moderating | content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher" I regret | to inform you that you are wrong." | | https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello. | .. | chrischattin wrote: | Oh, I know. I was saying they _should_ lose their status as | platforms if they are going to be un-equatable in | moderation - which they clearly are. | ohazi wrote: | > time to regulate large platforms like utilities | | Sure. | | > You cannot cut someone's power because they broadcast a death | threat from their house | | Uh... are you sure you understand what it means for something | to be a utility? | | Governments and police can absolutely cut power to your house | if you hole up inside and broadcast death threats. They've done | so for far less [1] [2]. | | [1] | https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20160928/electricity-... | | [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angeles-shut-off-water- | powe... | tolstoshev wrote: | That's the government doing it though, and not just the | utilities deciding to cut off your power. | pb7 wrote: | First step is to make ISPs utilities. Zero-th step is to | recognize that ISPs are just as oligopolistic with even fewer | comparative alternatives. | ayemiller wrote: | Who said anything about ISPs? | pb7 wrote: | How are you planning on accessing Facebook and Twitter if | Comcast boots you off their network because they're allowed | to? We don't even have net neutrality anymore. | ayemiller wrote: | off topic. | | EDIT: I think we have enough to discuss here without | bringing up hypothetical situations that would make us | all very sad. | probably_wrong wrote: | I'm going to agree with the parent comment: The question | of ISPs being a public utility or not is crucial for this | discussion because it goes to the core of the issue of | what should be a privilege and what should be a right. | | If you can be booted from Amazon because it's a private | company then you can also be refused service by your ISP. | And there's an argument to be made that, at some point | down the chain (AWS, DNS, ISP) you should have a _right_ | to internet access. Should Amazon be forced to offer | unconditional access to Parler? Probably not. But right | now there 's nothing stopping ISPs from cutting people's | internet connection just because they don't like what the | customers are doing with it, and that's a much thornier | issue. | | Regulating ISPs like utilities would delineate a clear | line in the sand for problems like this. | itronitron wrote: | >> You cannot cut someone's power because they broadcast a | death threat from their house | | You probably wouldn't need to cut their power in order to stop | the broadcast. Just call the local police. | ip26 wrote: | Why are large social media platforms more like utilities than | newspapers? | | In my head I would liken your ISP to the USPS or a utility, | while platforms I would liken to the press. | root_axis wrote: | Comparing social media access to electricity is the height of | disingenuous absurdity. | filoleg wrote: | I don't think the comparison is between social media access | and electricity access. The comparison is between access to | internet and access to electricity. You just picked a | specific case of "internet access" to make it look more silly | and easier to defeat. | | Using that same technique, I can say "Comparing internet | access to being able to use your toaster is the height of | disingenuous absurdity". You can see why this technique isn't | really legitimate and should be avoided in public arguments. | newacct583 wrote: | > You cannot cut someone's power because they broadcast a death | threat from their house. | | This is a bad, needlessly hyperbolic analogy. The reasons there | are regulations prohibiting the shutoff of utilities is that | these are basic needs without which people can be directly | harmed (often very seriously, if you cut off heating in the | winter, etc...). | | There is no similar human rights mandate for a Parler account. | | I'm not saying I disagree that some level of regulation is | appropriate. But this issue is (for somewhat obvious reasons) | being wildly overstated. Parler was shut down for explicitly | violent rhetoric which inspired real political violence, | period. | | Surely everyone agrees that this particular speech should have | been banned, right? We just disagree about the specifics of how | it should be done. If so, why are we screaming so loud about | "Silicon Valley" showing "Monopolistic Force"? | | Is hyperbole really the answer here? Or is it an attempt to | deflect discussion from things that seem a little more | important at the moment? | grecy wrote: | > _There is no similar human rights mandate for a Parler | account_ | | Canada considers internet access a basic human right, and | it's pretty clear the rest of the world will move in that | direction shortly. | | I think it's _very_ clear you can harm a person by cutting | them off from the world / loved ones, news, etc. Especially | in communities that have no outside access _other than_ | internet based. | | Maybe not Parler specifically, but certainly internet access. | And if the vast majority of the world and people around you | are getting news and info and social life from <website>, it | could be argued that denying access to <website> will harm a | person. | newacct583 wrote: | And similarly: likening the banning of one site that was a | hotbed of rhetoric akin to (or directly related to) a | serious incident of political violence to the "vast | majority of people around you" losing all internet access | is senselessly hyperbolic and unhelpful. | | If we grant that the reason we're currently in this crisis | of democracy is that people are addicted to an outrage | machine (stop the steal, #resistance, whatever), then maybe | it's our job to get us off the train. | | Why can't banning Parler just be about banning Parler and | not an assault on democracy or whatever? I mean, we all | agree that the kind of speech banned should be banned | somehow, right? | pbourke wrote: | >> There is no similar human rights mandate for a Parler | account | | >Canada considers internet access a basic human right, and | it's pretty clear the rest of the world will move in that | direction shortly. | | Having a Parler account and having access to the internet | are two different things. | | Funny that you mention Canada. Parler would likely have | trouble existing as a Canadian entity due to Canada's hate | speech laws and the courts' propensity to leave carriers | exposed to liability for hosting content that violates | those laws. | | Also, the Canadian government has a broad power to restrict | speech in times of crisis through the War Measures Act. | They could easily have switched a site like Parler off if a | similar event occurred. | root_axis wrote: | Getting banned from a social media site doesn't remove | one's access to the internet. | tjr225 wrote: | What a backwards ass situation we've found ourselves in. | | Imagine the flip side. Imagine if a bunch of "conservatives" from | Mississippi started a web hosting company 10 years ago and then | an anti-fascist social media platform sprouted up on their | infrastructure. Imagine people on this platform started posting | about how black lives matter on the platform. | | Imagine what the "conservative" reaction would be. | | You take a platform for violent extremists off of _private_ | servers hosted by a _private_ company on the West Coast and | everyone flips their lid. "Conservatives" have no shame. | howlgarnish wrote: | How do HN readers, who I presume would generally support safe | harbor provisions for free speech, common carrier rules etc, not | find it deeply alarming that this is happening? Even if Parler | hosted straight up illegal content, surely the proportional | response is to block _those accounts_ , not the entire platform? | If no, why aren't we deplatforming Twitter or Facebook next? | mplewis wrote: | Read the suspension letter. AWS suspended them BECAUSE they | refused to moderate the problem accounts. | | https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p... | hnburnsy wrote: | Parler stated in its lawsuit that it removed all the content | that Amazon pointed out... | | 'On January 8, 2021, AWS brought concerns to Parler about | user content that encouraged violence. Parler addressed them, | and then AWS said it was "okay" with Parler.' | | 'The next day, January 9, 2021, AWS brought more "bad" | content to Parler and Parler took down all of that content by | the evening' | | https://www.scribd.com/document/490405156/Parler-sues-Amazon | hnburnsy wrote: | also Parler wrote in the lawsuit... | | "AWS knew its allegations contained in the letter it leaked | to the press that Parler was not able to find and remove | content that encouraged violence was false--because over | the last few days Parler had removed everything AWS had | brought to its attention and more. Yet AWS sought to defame | Parler nonetheless." | busterarm wrote: | Because HN readers are just as tribalist as anyone else and now | they're winning after a bad ref call. | | You've seen this play out in sports hundreds of times. Politics | isn't any different. It's even got WWE-esque storylines. | dinero_rojo wrote: | It's even got a WWE "Superstar" at the center of it all! | | https://www.wwe.com/superstars/donald-trump | rodgerd wrote: | Do you support the idea that government should be able to force | you to allow your private property to be used by others? | | If so, when can I start hosting raves in your front room? | RangerScience wrote: | Been thinking about this, and basically - | | Freedom of speech is, colloquially, about being able to discuss | things. That's something I'd like to support, and to see more | of, | | but I'm going to draw a stark categorization between | _discussion_ and _incitement_. Both use words, sure. Are both | speech that should be free? | akmarinov wrote: | This right here. At least Apple gave them time to implement | moderation in their app. A really unrealistic 24 hour | timeframe, but still. | | Truth is it was good PR to obliterate Parler for everyone | involved and they weren't a big enough player to be able to | fight back. | inscionent wrote: | Parler was never a good faith actor. They are profiteers | looking to corral a conservative audience. They were more than | happen to moderate descriptions of areola, but not violence. | | We do have a big tech problem. Amazon, Facebook, Alphabet, and | Apple should be broken up. Twitter should be required to | improve moderation and bot removal. Public/Private enterprises | should be established to provide alternates to Twitter/Parler. | awillen wrote: | Blocking individual accounts is something Parler can do (and | chose not to), not Amazon/Facebook/Google who don't have access | to the contents of those accounts (at least not easily). | | Also, it's worth looking at some of the hacked info that was | released - Parler had a serious moderation system, but it was | used to make sure people had MAGA viewpoints, not to prevent | violence. This is not some free and open platform, it was a | controlled one that purposely built an echo chamber of violent | rhetoric. Twitter and Facebook don't allow the same kind of | violent rhetoric, lies, etc., and while they may not do an | ideal (or even good) job at it, the fact is they're broad | platforms used for a whole lot of things for a whole lot of | people and are absolutely not comparable to Parler. | Allower wrote: | >Twitter and Facebook don't allow the same kind of violent | rhetoric, lies, etc. | | You must not be paying much attention..this is simply not | true | 6sup6 wrote: | I can remember very well calls for violence in twitter | against Nick Sandemann. And I remember very well those calls | for violence not being removed at all. | | Also, during the riots of 2020, it was extremely common to | find calls to violence in twitter that weren't deleted. | AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: | What's your point, that they apply TOS inconsistently? I | don't think anyone will disagree with that assessment. They | let Trump violate the TOS for 4 years. | | They are perfectly within their rights as a private | business to make those exceptions. Is it fair? No. Would we | much rather they apply things consistently? Yes. | | The question is, do we want to enforce who and what they | can and cannot allow on their platform via law, or do we | want private businesses to control who they are allowed to | do business with? | MrMan wrote: | If my account could downvote I would. I dont want the top | comment once again to be some generic free speech | fundamentalism. It amounts to putting our head in the sand. We | should be able to rank, sort, and discriminate between | different competing challenges to the peaceful (as if everyone | even agrees that this is good) conduct of civilization. | | By all means "deplatform" Facebook, please, but why would you | condone that and condemn deplatforming Parler? makes no sense. | probably_wrong wrote: | I personally would be very angry if their ISP refused them | access, because I believe the internet should be a public | utility that everyone can use and "you can still yell on the | public square" wouldn't be a good faith argument. | | But I don't feel the same way about AWS, because they are not | as critical as an ISP would be. Nothing is stopping Parler from | plugging in and managing their own servers. I see AWS as a | convenience, and as such I don't think anyone is entitled to | it. | | As a side note: I would like to take a minute to remind the | youngsters that no one owes them a revolution. If you want to | go fight against the status quo, you should _really_ have a | plan for when the status quo fights back. | necrotic_comp wrote: | Because Parler was explicitly designed to host reprehensible | speech, and was not making a good-faith effort in censoring | their platform. Those hosting the platform decided "nah, we | don't want to be associated with this" and cut them off. | | These free-speech advocates still have the ability to create | mastodon instances or a listserv or something else where a | company doesn't have that leverage over them. They still have | options and this crying is overblown. | dboreham wrote: | This is action taken because AWS's customer (Parler) | specifically did not take that action. Since the raison d'etre | for Parler is to host content not acceptable to mainstream | social media sites, it seems reasonable to assume they won't in | good faith moderate their content. | umvi wrote: | Why should AWS care though? It's infrastructure. They should | not be disconnecting service just because the infrastructure | is used for something they perceive as evil. It would be like | Verizon automatically dropping calls if you make a phone call | and try to say something evil to the person on the other | line. | arrosenberg wrote: | Maybe, but that's not how internet services are currently | regulated. Ironically, because the Republicans have fought | that type of regulation tooth and nail. | | AWS cares because they're a public company with a | reputation, and many of their customers and employees are | anti-rioter. | baxtr wrote: | I think it's one thing if Twitter bans DJT. In the end it's | their platform, and their rules. But I feel very different | about infrastructure players starting their censorship based on | what's happening 1 or even 2 steps further down the line. It's | a wrong move and will just push the discussion somewhere else, | the least. The worst that this might lead is that the internet | breaks off into several non-communicating islands, which we all | don't want. | filmgirlcw wrote: | If we're talking about individual ISPs, backhaul providers, | and electricity companies, I agree. But we're not. | | If anything, we should be more bothered that people consider | something like AWS or any of the other major clouds, core | infrastructure akin to backhaul or electricity. (Google Play | and the App Store have always had very clear TOS rules that | limit certain types of content so I don't even see them as | being part of the discussion.) | | I fundamentally agree that something like Parler, as | abhorrent as much of its content was, has the right to exist | somewhere on the internet, but I just as fundamentally | disagree that Amazon should be forced to provide them with | services or that we should equate having a right to exist | with "having the right to exist on X's brand of compute." | malwrar wrote: | But how far can this principle be applied? I admit this is | complete hyperbole, but what if your local grocery stores | forbade you from buying food there because they didn't want | people associating them with you? I think there's a grey | area to explore here where that principle becomes | unsustainable, and even though this banning was done for | noble purposes it still isn't a norm I'd want to curse | future generations with. | amanaplanacanal wrote: | Hasn't this always been the norm though? People with | abhorrent views are not welcome in polite society. The | idea that I should be forced to associate with those | people is definitely not a norm I'd want to curse future | generations with. | filmgirlcw wrote: | But in your grocery store example, if the stores rules | are "customers need to wear a mask, wear shoes, wear a | shirt," and I refuse to do those things, or I strip naked | inside the store, or cause a commotion and start | screaming epithets at other customers, that store is more | than welcome to ban me from entering again. Now, if it is | literally the only store in existence, that's a more | complicated question, but me being inconvenienced by | having to go to a store further away as a consequence of | not following a place of businesses rules is fair game. | | What a store _can't_ do (at least in the US), is say, "we | won't let you shop here because your skin color is this, | or you're from this part of town, or you practice this | religion, or are this sexual orientation." Now, if a | person who matches one of those descriptions and chooses | to violate rules and screams at people in the middle of | the store, they can be denied service for that reason, | just not on the basis of their race or religion, etc. | | Parler violated AWS's terms of service. I'm not going to | be obtuse pretend that the type of political ideology | that Parler actively seeks out/evangelizes/caters to, | doesn't make them a target, of course it does. That | doesn't negate the fact that the TOS was violated and | there was no real plan of action from excising content | that violated Amazon's TOS from the platform. (Although I | want to be clear, getting a bunch of conservative | celebrities and Fox News hosts on your platform as a way | to try to buy respectability doesn't mean that the | rhetoric extolled by Parler CEO and championed by the | service is mainstream or even mainstream conservative. | Parler was/is a place that was not about free speech but | about pro-Trump speech; dissenters were banned from the | service, which is Parler's right, but it was hardly a | "free speech" platform.) | | Again, I'm not arguing Parler doesn't have the right to | exist. But I am arguing that AWS shouldn't be obligated | to host it. I'm also arguing that as big as AWS and the | other clouds are, they are not yet at the point of being | true pieces of immovable infrastructure. And honestly, I | hope they never are. Even those of us who don't shed any | tears for Parler, probably agree that we don't want to | live in a world where the only options for hosting a | website or app belong to a FAANG. | | If it were an issue of an ISP or a backhaul provider | denying access to the service, I would be the very first | person criticizing and standing up to the action. But | that's not what happened here. Someone came into a store | without shoes, without a shirt, without a mask, screaming | in the face of the employees and other customers. They | aren't allowed to shop at that store anymore. But a store | that might be a little further away is still an option. | pas wrote: | Cloudflare stopped hosting white supremacists before. It's | not the first time they terminated an account based on | content. | brodouevencode wrote: | That traffic was very targeted and isolated. With Parler | there was a lot of collateral damage. | brodouevencode wrote: | And it's being flagged on here, presumably because it's against | certain users' political priors. | PretzelFisch wrote: | What is your definition of Free speach? In america we have a | fredom of speach to protect the people from the government. Not | to protect the government from the people. As a buisness owner | i may refuse some one/entitiy service, it is how the free | market works. | bjornsing wrote: | Can you really? Here in Sweden, if a business owner refuses | service to people based on political opinions or similar they | are in for a world of hurt. I imagine it's the same in most | of the western world. | awillen wrote: | So if a neo-Nazi walks into a restaurant and says that all | Jews should burn to death then tries to order lunch and is | refused, that owner is in for a world of hurt? | | We need to stop pretending like everyone's viewpoint is | equal and we shouldn't exclude people for what they | believe. Violent racists should be ostracized and pushed | out of society. People who choose to have those kinds of | beliefs are a constant threat to the safety of people | around them. | | Now obviously it's a blurry line, but again, the neo-Nazis | storming the capital and their ilk are just way over the | line. Just because it's blurry doesn't mean we have to | pretend it doesn't exist out of some sense of fairness. | silicon2401 wrote: | It is a founding principle of western civilization that | you cannot be prosecuted for thoughts and ideas. All | viewpoints and thoughts are equal before the law; only | actions can be prosecuted. | | > We need to stop pretending like everyone's viewpoint is | equal and we shouldn't exclude people for what they | believe. Violent racists should be ostracized and pushed | out of society. People who choose to have those kinds of | beliefs are a constant threat to the safety of people | around them. | | I will hard disagree with this every day of the week. To | me this is a clear example of how ideology has taken the | place of religion in today's society. It's no longer | enough for you to be civil and respect the laws, but even | having the wrong thoughts is considered criminal, just | like lust and envy are considered sinful in religion. | | We're heading in a dark direction if we're re-adopting | the same principles and perspectives that were behind | McCarthyism, let alone used to burn witches and conduct | the Inquisition. | evgen wrote: | > All viewpoints and thoughts are equal before the law; | only actions can be prosecuted. | | And this would be an issue if we were actually talking | about government action, but we are talking about private | individuals deciding who they will associate with. When | the government gets involved then you have reason for | concern, but if this is private parties engaging in | commerce you have absolutely no leg to stand on. | claudiawerner wrote: | >All viewpoints and thoughts are equal before the law; | only actions can be prosecuted. | | Speech is a kind of action, isn't it? | anthonyrstevens wrote: | You're arguing against a straw man. No one is saying "ban | them for their thoughts", they are saying "ban them for | inciting violence". | | (cue the desperate, too-cute-by-half arguments "but are | they REALLY inciting violence?") | [deleted] | lurker619 wrote: | So do you agree we were wrong to ban ISIS recruiting | groups on facebook? | | Less sarcastically, do you agree that the amplification | of thought and rhetoric possible using social media isn't | something that was considered 500 years ago? i.e. having | wrong thoughts isn't dangerous, but having 75 million | followers and pushing your wrong thoughts on them is | dangerous. It isn't thoughts any longer - it's an action. | [deleted] | mind-blight wrote: | I think the owner would get sued, but I'm not sure if it | would hold up in US court. We have laws preventing | businesses from discriminating based on race, sex, | ethnicity, and national origin, but I don't know if there | are any such protections that apply to businesses for | political affiliation. | | The US tends to bias towards letting market pressures take | care of this sort of thing, and then stepping in if there | are enough high-profile cases of failure. | | There are also a bunch of edge cases that I think most | people would be ok with. There are conservative-only dating | sites. I wouldn't be allowed on the platform, but that | doesn't really bother me. If there was a republican-only | grocery store, that gets sketchy. And if there was a | democrat-only government program, that would clearly be | illegal. | tjalfi wrote: | > I think the owner would get sued, but I'm not sure if | it would hold up in US court. We have laws preventing | businesses from discriminating based on race, sex, | ethnicity, and national origin, but I don't know if there | are any such protections that apply to businesses for | political affiliation. | | It depends on the context. | | Political affiliation is a protected class for employment | in some states[0]. | | Political affiliation is a protected class for | accommodations such as grocery stores in DC[1] and | Madison, Wisconsin[2]. | | [0] https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and- | employment/discrimin... | | [1] https://ohr.dc.gov/protectedtraits | | [2] https://library.municode.com/wi/madison/codes/code_of | _ordina... | anoonmoose wrote: | Fun fact- political affiliation, which is not a protected | class in most of the US, IS in fact a protected class in | DC. So yeah, you can kick someone out of your bar simply | for wearing a MAGA hat in almost the entire US...except | for DC. | jcranmer wrote: | > if a business owner refuses service to people based on | political opinions or similar they are in for a world of | hurt | | That surprises me. "Political opinion" is not a protected | class [1] in most jurisdictions in the US, and I assume | that the same holds for whatever the local equivalent is to | protected class. Especially considering that a lot of | European countries also have laws that prohibit Holocaust | denial--which are unconstitutional in the US per the 1st | Amendment. | | [1] Protected class, in US discrimination law jargon, is an | attribute that you cannot legally use to discriminate | against. The usual protected classes are sex, race, | ethnicity, national origin, disability, age, sexual | orientation, and gender identity, although there is some | variation from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (e.g., military | service is protected in my state). | bjornsing wrote: | You're right to be surprised. I looked it up and | political opinion actually isn't protected in Sweden | either. | | There are other laws that prevent business owners from | denying people entry or removing somebody from their | store or similar (see Supreme Court decision NJA 1995 s. | 84). They can't even prevent people who have historically | stolen from them from coming in and spending time in the | store. But apparently they don't have to do business with | them. I thought they did. | anoonmoose wrote: | Broadly speaking, the situation you described is legal in | the US. We have protected classes that you're not allowed | to discriminate against, but "political belief/affiliation" | isn't one of them. | bjornsing wrote: | Actually, it's not in Sweden either. I thought it was, | but it's apparently not. | | There are other laws that prevent business owners from | denying people entry or removing somebody from their | store or similar (see Supreme Court decision NJA 1995 s. | 84). They can't even prevent people who have historically | stolen from them from coming in and spending time in the | store. But apparently they don't have to do business with | them. I thought they did. | fimoreth wrote: | (In US) I agree that business owners should never refuse | people based on political opinions. I would be firmly | against AWS/Google not willing to work with a company | because it has conservative views. | | In Parler's case, the issue isn't that they are | conservative. The issue is that they refuse to take any | responsibility for the hate and violence on their platform. | John Matze had every opportunity to take responsibility for | the content, but he was vocal that he would not do anything | about it. | | If I were running a cloud provider company, I wouldn't want | anything to do with this behavior either. Who cares whether | the users lean right or left - hate and violence are | unacceptable. | deeeeplearning wrote: | With english that bad there is no chance you are American or | a Business owner. Please downvote this Russian/Chinese | astroturfer. | alacombe wrote: | > As a buisness owner i may refuse some one/entitiy service, | it is how the free market works. | | Can a business in the US refuse you service if you're gay / | black ? | | Same argument applies. | yoav wrote: | The key thing here is that Parler _refused_ to do this. | | Had Parler done this these companies wouldn't have distanced | themselves from them. But also their whole brand is enabling | those accounts so had they blocked those accounts they wouldn't | have a community. | eximius wrote: | I find both the existence and destruction of Parler disturbing | as separate incidents. | | However, I am going to worry more that it existed in the first | place than it being destroyed. | valuearb wrote: | Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to go over to your | neighbors house and print out and distribute hate speech from | their printer. | | Parlour used AWS property to allow its members to help organize | sedition. AWS has the right to nope out. | | All the problems with large private entities like Twitter and | Facebook hosting speech on their own terms pale in to | comparison with letting governments dictate how they host | speech. | | Parlour can find or create another hosting device and get back | up quickly. If they want to use mainstream services, they | should moderate out something other than liberals. | pas wrote: | One current model of what's happened/happening, is the US | system of politics is broken (first-past-the-post voting in | states, 2 seats per state, two party, polarization ... and now | on top of that the drawback of the separately elected president | is that now the Executive and the Legislation was in a | deadlock), so the private sector stepped in its usual awkward | way. (FB/Tw/YT profited from hosting recruiting content, they | did some minor moderation to calm advertisers, but now real | people realized that they have the capacity, right and maybe | even moral duty to do something with the problem they helped to | create, so reverse course, full throttle backward, bam-bam, | ban, ban.) | | It's not about illegal content. It's about politics and ethics. | (And private companies can choose to do or not do business with | whomever they want - except a few protected things. But there's | a gay wedding cake somewhere too in this. Free association and | free speech. Ethically it's hard to coerce anyone to say or not | say something, and to host or not host some content.) | | Furthermore, there's the power imbalance aspect. Twitter | banning SciHub is probably Twitter abusing its power, Twitter | banning Trump is less likely an abuse. (Though there very well | could be and are exceptions.) | silicon2401 wrote: | > Even if Parler hosted straight up illegal content, surely the | proportional response is to block those accounts, not the | entire platform? If no, why aren't we deplatforming Twitter or | Facebook next? | | I've made this exact argument. It's a blatant double standard | that Youtube or Twitter, as you said, aren't held liable for | the content their users upload, but Amazon and Google can | deplatform whoever they want for whatever they want. | | I've read a joke that we're officially in a cyberpunk world now | that corporations are "going to war" with each other. I've | thought that our society has been heading towards civil war for | years, but only in the past year with so many riots and | corporate overreach have I started to believe it might actually | come sooner than later. | ashtonkem wrote: | YouTube and others _try_. Parler didn't, on purpose. | | This is really just a lesson about what happens when you | squander your reputation and lose the presumption of good | faith. | darkwizard42 wrote: | Except Twitter and Youtube routinely moderate their content. | | It isn't perfect but they are actively and publicly doing so. | Parler publicly seems to take the stance of no to little | moderation. I haven't read the hacked info from the site on | principle of how it was distributed/hacked but seems that | data confirms it based on others notes in the thread | alacombe wrote: | > Except Twitter and Youtube routinely moderate their | content. | | Counter argument : twitter letting "Hang Mike Pence" | trends. | Tallasatree wrote: | So lets think about this for a minute. What is the goal? To | stop violence and to stop promulgating illegal material? Or | to make it look like you want to stop violence? | | If its the latter, then lets continue to deplatform people. | If its the former, then lets ban facebook, twitter et al | given their proven history of allowing violence and hate | speech and as an essential tool to organize mobs. | | The logic here is terrible and you can't argue against | that. No matter how many users parler gets, it won't even | come close to having the same reach. | ShamelessC wrote: | > If its the former, then lets ban facebook, twitter et | al given their proven history of allowing violence and | hate speech and as an essential tool to organize mobs. | | Sounds good to me... They're totally culpable for the | domestic terrorism that happened at the capitol. Facebook | too. Dogshit companies that track our behavior and make | money off of outrage. | darig wrote: | Parler, in a show of embarrassing lack of technical ability, | unable to build and operate their own private infrastructure, | destroyed themselves. | jmartrican wrote: | Maybe I'm wrong but this isnt about politics, its about violence | to the public. Only when that line was crossed did private | companies concluded their terms of service were breached. | txsoftwaredev wrote: | Only when it was clear the Republican party would hold little | power in the US government did private companies concluded | their terms of service were breached. | jxramos wrote: | > That is because three Silicon Valley monopolies -- Amazon, | Google and Apple -- abruptly united to remove Parler from the | internet, exactly at the moment when it became the most- | downloaded app in the country. | | I think I heard this point before about it trending to most | popular for a fleeting moment. Does anyone have specific dates | when that occurred and how long that trend lasted? Where exactly | is this information conveyed, in the app stores themselves? Is | there some archived location I can go look up to verify the | veracity of the claim? | [deleted] | chmod600 wrote: | Is Parler content, or a service? If the former, then taking it | down seems reasonable. If the latter, horrifying. | | Of course it's both, like all social media. | | The content is horrible now, but it's quite possible -- likely | even -- that it would have broadened quite a bit. It was a likely | home not just for political extremists, but also quite acceptable | content that's being deplatformed elsewhere, like firearms- | related content. | _nothing wrote: | > how they just used their unconstrained power to utterly destroy | a rising competitor. | | From the start, this stood out to me as a very faulty premise. | How exactly was Parler, a social media site, a competitor to | Amazon, Google, or Apple? It would be different if this were | Facebook, but we're talking about ecosystems/infrastructure vs a | single app/website. | | Also how can the power of three separate companies be a monopoly? | The argument seems to be that Silicon Valley is itself a | monopoly, except Silicon Valley is only a geographic location. | [deleted] | NDizzle wrote: | Can anyone provide a link to all of these reprehensible things | that Parler refused to take down? | | I know this may be difficult to do currently, with the site | brought offline, but still. | jonathankoren wrote: | It's not so much the "refused to take down" anything, the | community was doing exactly what site intended. The problem is | that community started planning violence. | | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/01/07/capitol... | NDizzle wrote: | Greenwald says the majority of the planning was done on | Facebook. | https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1348619731734028293.html | jonathankoren wrote: | 1) So what? You can have a bit planning, as a treat? | | 2) Facebook is self hosted. | NDizzle wrote: | The "so what" is that Parler was taken down for an action | that was planned on Facebook. | jonathankoren wrote: | Leaving the shifting goalposts aside, you've failed to | explain why compelled association, and loss of control of | private property is justifiable. | | My band needs a place to practice. Give me your living | room. You have people over, so if you don't let my band | practice, you're censoring me. | NDizzle wrote: | I haven't shifted the goalpost. Greenwald says, right | there in his twitter thread talking about this article, | that nobody was planning Jan 6th on Parler. They were | planning it on Facebook. That's it. | NDizzle wrote: | I'm searching, but I'm finding things like this: | https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/22/parler-maga-electio... | | "Hashtags on Parler denoting Trump's favorite conspiracy | theories -- #Dominion, #Sharpiegate, #QAnon -- trend freely, | without the restrictions Twitter and Facebook have instituted | to suppress them." | | Hashtags trend freely. Oh no! I might be exposed to free range | hashtags! I may have to actually think for myself. | vinceguidry wrote: | This is what polarizing actions do, they force people to choose | sides. And as the American right coalesces into two camps, pro- | Trump and everyone else, the left is forced to harden around it's | majority mindset. And that mindset includes, platforms and | megaphones aren't free. The people that built Silicon Valley are | liberals, and until called on to protect those liberal values, | they'll allow (and make money from) everybody else. | | If the finger-quote conservatives want their own platform with | which they can plot the downfall of American democracy | unrestricted, they're going to need their own infrastructure and | their own apps and, it's starting to look like soon, their own | banks and financial industries to handle their money. | | You have ANY idea how hard it is to get a bank to overlook a | pecuniary interest for a moral one? Apparently you have to erect | a gallows on the Capitol lawn. | thesausageking wrote: | Parler isn't destroyed. They're in the process of migrating to | Epik and will be back online. Epik is also who hosts Gab, | InfoWars, and other similar right wing sites. | | They signed a contract with AWS and didn't live up to it, so AWS | cancelled it. That's how free markets work. | [deleted] | chmod600 wrote: | Would Twitter/FB have lived up to these standards early on? | | It seems like any new social platform could be pretty easily | crushed under these standards. So the only way we will see a new | social media platform is if they build their own data centers, | and can grow without having an app. | | And maybe they need their own browser, maybe client hardware like | phones and tablets? | | It seems unlikely that a startup would succeed under these | conditions. So we better be happy with our current overlords (and | whatever humans happen to be in charge of those companies in the | future). | [deleted] | patagonia wrote: | A monopoly is composed of "one" entity. It's in the name. This is | not a fair characterization of what happened. | cassianoleal wrote: | You are technically correct. | | The right term in this case is an oligopoly. | | Semantically it makes little difference though. | darig wrote: | It certainly is different when EVERYONE hates you, rather | than just the king. | patagonia wrote: | Which generally requires collusion. There was no collusion. | These are independent actors in a competitive space that | arrived at the same conclusion independently. | | People want free speech. You get free speech so long as your | speech doesn't unduly impinge on other's liberties. That is | the trade off we accept when we exchange the rule of force | for the rule of law in a self governing, democratic society. | | People are not complaining about business practices. People | are complaining about not being able to say whatever they | want over whatever medium they want even if other people get | dead. | 6sup6 wrote: | Mark zuckerberg, during one of the senate hearings, | admitted that facebook coordinates with other big tech | companies in certain situations. | FabHK wrote: | I suppose that the article is talking about monopolies in their | respective market (namely iOS app stores, Android app store, | and "the cloud"). | | Unless you're quite tech savvy, you can't sign up for Parler | anymore by using a competitor. So, while I mostly disagree with | Greenwald, I don't think this characterisation is unfair. | bo1024 wrote: | What bothers me about this article is that it tries to present a | logical argument that tech monopolies are a problem, wrapped in a | political rhetoric about how liberals are authoritarian. It | starts off as an interesting perspective but ends up as | inflammatory whataboutism that doesn't engage deeply with the | issue. | | This is a really interesting moment in history to think about | censorship, platforms, speech, and monopoly. We can do a lot | better than this article. | firstSpeaker wrote: | We have discussed this in my workplace (a bank) to reconsider | lifting our k8s and shifting it to a cloud provider from our data | centres. I imagine this is a conversation many other companies re | going to have specially when those companies are outside of USA | and using US companies services. | maedla wrote: | Is it good that unelected people have this much power? No. Did | they do the right thing here? Yes | SonOfThePlower wrote: | All people, regardless of their worldview, left- and right-wing, | should be aware that they are in the same boat on this. | wilsynet wrote: | When we used to talk about "monopolies", we referred to specific | private enterprises. But these companies aren't actually | monopolies. Facebook doesn't have a monopoly on social | networking, there's Twitter and TikTok and Snap too. AWS doesn't | have a monopoly on cloud infra, there's GCP and Azure and Oracle | and Digital Ocean too. | | The author knows that these companies aren't actually monopolies, | so he insinuates that the whole region (Silicon Valley) is a | monopoly. And one of these companies (Amazon) it isn't even | located in the Silicon Valley region; it's located in the state | of Washington. | | So really the author has expanded the target of the ire to a | whole industry. That is to say, the tech industry has a monopoly | on the tech industry. | Miner49er wrote: | If Amazon isn't a monopoly (or at least close) then why is | Amazon facing action or under investigation for antitrust from | Congress, the European Union, the DOJ and 3 states? | wilsynet wrote: | The European Commission is investigating Amazon based on | "distorting competition in online retail markets" [1]. I | don't see a claim by the commission that Amazon is a | monopoly. You can be investigated and have antitrust related | actions applied to you without actually being a monopoly [2]. | | Further, the investigation is related to Amazon's retail | marketplace business, not Amazon as a provider of cloud | infrastructure. What is congress investigating Amazon for? I | think you need to be more specific. | | 1. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_2 | 0_... | | 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law | "In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of | federal and state government laws that regulate the conduct | and organization of business corporations and are generally | intended to promote competition for the benefit of | consumers." | kevwil wrote: | This is the beginning of the end for America. Regardless of | whether we agree or disagree with what someone says, a free | society depends on freedom of expression. It's the first right in | the Bill of Rights for a good reason. Layers and layers of legal | loopholes make politically biased corporate censorship perfectly | legal. I weep for those whose livelihood depends on social media | and e-commerce, because they now must live in fear of having | their lives destroyed for expressing an opinion. Or for no reason | at all. | kickopotomus wrote: | > Layers and layers of legal loopholes make politically biased | corporate censorship perfectly legal. | | What loopholes? The 1st amendment protects you from being | persecuted by the government for your speech. It does not | require private entities to publish, promote, transmit, or | broadcast your speech. Similarly, discrimination is legal in | the US. It is only illegal to discriminate against members of | protected classes on the basis of them being members of those | protected classes. Political affiliation is not a protected | class. | | Anyone that wants to spout off abhorrent things on the internet | is free to do so. However, no private entity can be forced to | allow such behavior. You do not have a right to have your tweet | published by Twitter. You do not have a right to store your | bits on an Amazon server. | MrMan wrote: | boohoo - if I have to be afraid of half the country putting me | on a kill list because of what they read on social media, then | people who peddle poison via social media - including the | social media firms themselves - should be as uncomfortable as | me and my family. | alboy wrote: | To me, the worldview where half the population of the country | are mindless zombies that can be remotely controlled through | their social media feed and need to be shepherded by Uncle | Faang just to prevent them from killing people is even | bleaker than GP's perspective. | eastbayjake wrote: | This is a really bad take. This country has never accepted | calls for violent overthrow of our democratic system as | "freedom of expression", and that's a view that's been upheld | by all three branches of government across all eras of our | history from the founding (Shays Rebellion?) through the Civil | War (which definitively settled that armed rebellion is not a | permissible way to settle political differences) through World | War I (which defined our current laws about sedition and | restrictions on the freedoms in the First Amendment) to the | present day. You don't have a right to force anyone else -- | individuals or private corporations -- to amplify your views, | and you certainly don't have a right to incite violence or | rebellion even on your own dime. | | EDIT: This would be a _less bad take_ if Parler had been booted | just because people on the platform voted for Trump, but to be | clear: Parler was booted because _it was used to organize an | armed rebellion with the explicit goal of finding and executing | members of Congress certifying a democratic vote_ , and _its | users have been encouraging people to feed Democrats ' families | into woodchippers while making them watch_. | alacombe wrote: | > This country has never accepted calls for violent overthrow | of our democratic system as "freedom of expression" | | This is literally how the US were born, cf. The Declaration | of Independance. I'm fairly certain King George was praised | by a majority. | Svettie wrote: | No one is defending calls for violent overthrow, but | typically we hold the people that have actually committed the | acts responsible. Here, we're shifting the responsibility a | level above with the sentiment that "this happened on your | platform, so you have a duty to moderate". The kicker is that | these tech giants employed the polar opposite of this | philosophy for the majority of their existence to eschew as | much responsibility as possible for their users' content. | | Let's see. If I go and organize a violent insurrection using | GMail, what does Google need to do to comply with it's own | philosophy here? It seems that it needs to start scanning all | emails for inciting violence and send them to a moderation | queue. Of course, it's never going to do any of that, because | unlike Parler it doesn't have any overlords holding it by the | neck. | | Google, Apple, and Amazon like to do whatever they can get | away with when it comes to anti-competitive practices, and | enjoy the protections granted to them as private entities. On | the other hand, this shows that they're willing to also take | unilateral action to silence millions of people, based on | nothing more than a whim and a holier-than-thou attitude. | There's a messy contradiction here. They're not subject to | having to abide by the 1st amendment because they're private | companies, but in practice they're in control of the majority | of public discourse. This is a big problem. | | And this returns me to what I think was a big point in the | article. The response to any free-speech concerns has been: | "if you don't like Facebook or Google's policies, you're free | to create your own." But the sway of FB/Google's policies is | no longer just over their own content, but also the platforms | they manage. Which as it turns out, form the majority of the | infrastructure of the internet. | RIMR wrote: | Leave it to Glenn Greenwald to, in the face of violence, | sedition, and misinformation, care more about some vacuous notion | of "free speech" than the health of our Democracy. | | This guy used to have a ton of my respect, but honestly he seems | like a complete joke recently. | dominicjj wrote: | You don't live in a democracy by design. You live in a | constitutional republic. | dredmorbius wrote: | Pedantic hairsplitting is pedantic. | dominicjj wrote: | Not hairsplitting at all. They're vastly different systems. | And you know they are. | AzzieElbab wrote: | You ban people from Twitter they go to Parler, you destroy Parler | they go somewhere else where no opposite point of view will ever | be herd and no dialog can ever happen. This is how you create | domestic isis. Is there a patriot act 2.0 already in the making | to guard US from this self made media sponsored disaster? | jackson1442 wrote: | By domestic ISIS do you mean an organization that attempts to | take over the capital to abduct and/or kill politicians and | stop a democratic election? | blank_fan_pill wrote: | How is this a show of monopolistic force? | | Its like a a half dozen interdependently owned companies each | choosing on their own to not associate with Parler. | | If you piss off everyone at the same time and everyone decides to | not do business with you, thats not a monopoly issue. | ipsum2 wrote: | This article makes me sad, because I used to support Greenwald. | It's surprising he doesn't know the definition of monopoly | (i.e. Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter do not compose a | monopoly). | rodgerd wrote: | I mean Greenwald has also asserted that no Parler user was | involved in the insurrection, which is a straight-up lie. The | fact his work has such an uncritical following on HN doesn't | say much could about HN's pretensions to offer high quality | discussion. | kats wrote: | In the US there are two mobile OS options (Android and iOS) | with a combined 99.8% market share. And large companies like | Microsoft (Windows Mobile), Amazon (Fire OS), and Samsung | (Tizen) haven't been able to grow their market share, so the | barrier to entry seems pretty high. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | even if that's true (it is and it isn't, but the pedantry | isn't important), what you're saying is effectively is that | a duopoly over mobile devices is the same as a monopoly | over the internet. | | that's patently untrue. it's untrue in the simplistic sense | that you can access the internet with non-mobile | technology, and its even untrue in the slightly less | simplistic sense that an organization can provides its | online presence as a website (gasp!) so as to avoid the | need to have an app available on corporately-controlled | stores. | [deleted] | ashtonkem wrote: | Glenn Greenwald again proving to be a crank. | | If Silicon Valley is such an overwhelming monopolistic force, why | is 8kun and 4chan up? | | No, Parler did a dumb thing by depending so deeply on one hosting | provider, and the inevitable bit them. | jjtheblunt wrote: | Why aren't Google, Apple, AWS free to dissociate themselves from | trouble brewing? | tdullien wrote: | Perhaps mine is a bit of a strange/controversial view among the | HN crowd - but I find the conflation of "right to free speech" | and "right to a platform for said speech" to be odd. | | I don't agree that "infringement of free speech" can happen in a | commercial context. The right to free speech is the right that | you cannot have government force act on you for what you are | saying; e.g. the _government_ has no right to tell you "don't | say this or it will have consequences". As for private contracts: | Trying to enforce "free speech" that must not be infringed upon | in private contracts would also mean all NDAs are always void, | and would be a huge intrusion into another liberty: That of | entering into arbitrary agreements with each other. | | The .cn regulator cracking down on Ant Financial because they did | not like what Jack Ma said is an infringement on free speech. A | private business actor deciding to terminate a contract because | they don't like the business partner is not. | | Related: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/midtown-uniform-patagonia- | will-... | strken wrote: | Free-speech-as-legal-right and free-speech-as-moral-principle | are different: the legal right exists to uphold the moral | principle. You're probably correct when you say the legal right | can't be infringed in a commercial context, but the moral | principle can be violated by anyone. | | I think a lot of confusion comes from people who only | acknowledge free-speech-as-legal-right encountering people who | support free-speech-as-moral-principle. | Kapura wrote: | This is what happens if you build a platform on somebody else's | platform: you're subject to their whims. Any and all people who | make their living off of YouTube understands this, and they | intentionally diversify so they have options if their primary | platform becomes unavailable. | | Outside of that, though, I couldn't care less that fascist | organization platforms are being tanked. Free speech as an | abstract principle has been used as cover for fascism in the U.S. | for the better part of the past half century. | commandlinefan wrote: | > somebody else's platform | | My concern is how far down "somebody else's platform" goes. | Twitter bans Trump: they're a platform, they can ban whoever | they want. AWS bans Parler: they're a platform, they can ban | whoever they want. Verizon is an ISP... are they a platform? | Can they ban whoever they want? GoDaddy is a domain registrar. | Are they a platform? Can they ban whoever they want? | root_axis wrote: | > _Verizon is an ISP... are they a platform?_ | | Remember net neutrality? Guess who killed it. | Kapura wrote: | Yes, this is the different between utilities and other forms | of business. If you think everybody is entitled to cloud | compute resources, then your argument holds water. | dgellow wrote: | Also to consider/add to your list: certificates authorities. | sershe wrote: | A few years ago, the power was cut to the broadcasting studio | of Navalny's organization (a Russian opposition guy), while | they were live covering the anti-corruption protests. I guess | "this is what happens if you build a platform on somebody | else's platform", instead of running your own power plant! | Kapura wrote: | do you not understand the difference between power being cut | and needing to build your own servers? AWS cloud isn't a | public utility. | locusofself wrote: | Is Substack becoming the Parler of journalism in a way? It seems | to be attracting "overton window" challengers from both sides, | but I wonder if it's going to devolve into a cesspool in it's own | way. | acdha wrote: | It's a common failure mode of funding everything from | advertising: controversy attracts attention and you can ratchet | that up profitably for a long time before you reach a point | where advertisers don't want to be associated with you. | craexs wrote: | There is no "right to be broadcast" or "right to be published" in | the right to free speech. You have the right to say it, but you | don't have the right to force others to listen, read or see it - | nor are publishers or conduits required to broadcast or transmit | it. | | Your online "self" does not exist. There is no such thing as a | right to free speech in an online sense as there is no shared | utility that must accept all speech. Every step of the way is | owned by a business - be it your ISP (which is _not_ a utility - | at least at the moment), a platform provider, or content | publisher, or web infrastructure provider. All of them can and do | have Terms of Use that any user must comply with in order to use | their service. Unless /until that changes, any discussion of | "right" to free speech online is patently ridiculous. | codenesium wrote: | I feel like you have the right to free speech. You don't have a | right to a platform though. If you want to spread your hate | person to person go for it. We're not going to broadcast your | nonsense to the world. | [deleted] | 99_00 wrote: | I see a lot of people saying that Parler was only used to promote | hate. | | How where they able to determine this? | vannevar wrote: | Or, "How Parler outsourced nearly every critical aspect of its | business, incurring massive risk in pursuit of maximizing | profits." This is the risk of the modern, ultra-lean online | enterprise. Parler got kicked off for knowingly providing a | communications platform for terrorists. But other businesses that | ride along on the backs of FAANG, like the business equivalent of | remora eels, have been similarly affected by factors out of their | control like changing search algorithms and shifting app store | policies. It's a risk of running a business on top of someone | else's business. | dmode wrote: | The whole debate has been framed in terms of free speech. Which | is misleading. Because, technically, any corporation are free to | impose their policies, as long as they abide by the laws of the | state. The debate should be pivoted to tech concentration and | monopoly. This has been argued by Elizabeth Warren during her | presidential run. However, the same people who are complaining | about tech's supposed censor of free speech, where vehemently | against Warren's plan for tech break up | beaunative wrote: | Many comments here mentioned free speech though constitution only | stipulates that congress should make no law abridging the freedom | of speech. Surely a person is within his rights to reject such | protest happening in his own backyard when it comes to the right | to assembly. Why can't Apple, a private company, forbid an app | from its own appstore? It is a matter of monopoly, if Apple, | Google and Facebook alike are acting like market regulators, | since they together owns the market itself when it comes to | mobile app consumption, which is traditionally something only the | government is capable of doing. | foolinaround wrote: | a big issue is being missed. | | Apple, while accusing Parler of not monitoring what it users | send, technically is guilty of the same, when users send SMS | messages to each other to bomb a place. | | Now that Apple is enforcing tenants on its platform such as de- | platforming Parler, it should also be held responsible for the | actions of any other app ( left or right wing), since it has | stepped up to do that. | | If this is not acceptable, all talk of free speech is really | hogwash. | curation wrote: | Platforms are a form of the public commons that have been | privatized. The privatization is the problem, not the content. | What is happening is that the form of free public speech has | become, over the past 15 years, something that we now have to pay | rent to use. FB, Microsoft, Google, Twitter, Parler are private | forms of communication that we now all have to pay rent to in | order to communicate. There needs to be a free public commons of | communication. If that existed this problem would not exist. It | is, as most here have asserted, a dissonance and problem with | allowing unelected billionaires to decide on free speech. This is | because it attacks the form of free public speech only because of | the content and our economic order. The solution is to create an | international public commons that protects communication, health, | etc. | cafard wrote: | "Freedom of the press belongs primarily to him who owns one." | | --A.J. Liebling, quoted from memory. | strangattractor wrote: | Legally they have the right to refuse service but ethically they | owe the public. However "Free Speech" does not entitle people to | Freely Lie. As we have seen the wrong words from the right person | can cause the loss of life. The police officer did not deserve to | die to further the political ambitions of a few morally/ethically | bankrupt individuals. | | Parler can recreate itself on another platform if they wish. Gab | is still up. It is just as disgusting. The Constitution only | guarantees that Congress shall pass no laws prohibiting free | speech. The last time I checked Amazon or Twitter cannot pass | legislation. | | Free speech is prevented by the use of force. We held an | election. The results where not what some people liked. They | tried to cancel the people's voice. That is the real speech | suppression here. | esoterica wrote: | Parler has already has another host, which is proof that Amazon | etc. don't have monopolistic force. | chrispeel wrote: | I detest click-bait | dragonwriter wrote: | Parler was providing material support to terrorists. Not cutting | off Parler would also be providing material support to | terrorists. | | This Administration publicly announced a policy of maximum | prosecution of offenses connected in any way to domestic civil | unrest, in general (now, at the top this was obviously, though | not on its face, politically targeted at their opponents, but the | career prosecutors called on to execute the policy are perhaps | less likely to apply it narrowly in that way), and, in specific, | both the D.C. AG and the US Attorney for the District of Columbia | have separately indicated that they will be actively pursuing all | connections out from the attack on the Capitol, including | incitement, in the DC AG's case explictly including that which | may have been committed by the sitting President's inner circle, | and, though charges would need to be held until after he leaves | office, the President himself. | | There's a reason people are fleeing from any material connection | to the terrorists or anyone seen to have a connection who isn't | themselves actively cutting ties with them. | kfarr wrote: | Yes, this is a liability issue for Amazon / AWS. Which has more | liability -- keeping them or shutting them off for TOS | violation? The answer is easy. | alacombe wrote: | > Parler was providing material support to terrorists | | So is Twitter, by having Iranian leaders account left alone. | igetspam wrote: | Multiple companies banding together is not a monopoly. This was a | collective effort. You could call it a polyoploy but click-bait | gonna click-bait. | | They didn't kill Parker though, we did. We made if clear that we | wouldn't do business with companies that supported the worst of | us. They complied with our demands to force them out of the | public sphere and I applaud them for it. As an ex Googler and | generally anti FAANG, I don't have many fond words for them but I | support this action. For the most part, I even approve of the | timeline: let garbage peddling monsters be garbage peddling | monsters until they do real damage and then cut them off. | exegete wrote: | People complain that this violates free speech rights but what | about the rights of those at AWS, Twitter, etc? They have the | right not to do business or associate with these people. | lachlanwaterbur wrote: | Well, that's the last HN article I will knowingly read. | dgellow wrote: | Next will be DNS, then encryption. If you're more than 25 old you | already know this. | nipponese wrote: | Uhhh, no. If you know you are going to be attracting users with | some extreme views, make sure you have a strategy to scale up | your moderation tools and staff, or at least APPEAR to be doing | it. Their "oh, it's just too hard to moderate" argument is pretty | pathetic. Even Youtube, in the make or break moment with | copyright holders, struck a deal with Viacom so that they may | survive. That's how you build a "tech" company. | VikingCoder wrote: | > The platform was created based in libertarian values of | privacy, anti-surveillance, anti-data collection, and free | speech. | | I'm sorry, but parts of this are not true. | | Liberals were banned. [1] That's anti "free speech." | | Parler only did a soft delete of data, flagging it as deleted, | rather than removing it from servers. [2] That's anti "anti-data | collection". | | [1] : https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as- | pr... | | [2] : https://mashable.com/article/parler-archive-user-posts/ | andred14 wrote: | I was on Parler and never did I see anyone suggest violence | | This ban is simply the spread of commun1st party propaganda. | | sovetskii komissar privetstvuet vas tovarishch. | | Da zdravstvuet Stalin!! | Bud wrote: | "Monopolistic force"? Fucking Glenn Greenwald. Jesus. | | This is neither "monopolistic", nor is it "force". Words still | have meaning. | | First, obviously it's not monopolistic; quite obviously, Parler | is still _entirely free_ to roll its own hosting, even if every | host out there shuns them. | | Second, for reasons I hope I don't have to explain, this isn't | "force". This is the opposite of force. This is peaceably | retreating from doing business with Parler. | | I don't know what happened to Glenn Greenwald about 10 years ago, | but something definitely happened. | enraged_camel wrote: | Glenn is totally fine with fascists, as long as those fascists | aren't after him personally (i.e. Bolsonaro). | busterarm wrote: | You're perfectly free to drill your own oil, even if nobody in | the oil industry will supply you. | | At a certain point this kind of argument is farcical. If you | can't at a minimum get racks in a datacenter, the bandwidth and | power costs of running a site that large will destroy you. | | Oh and DNS registrars are known for being picky about their | customers too. | Bud wrote: | Fine, but even if we accept all that, Glenn's argument that | this is "monopolistic" doesn't pass the laugh test. | | Because in order for Parler to be unable to get racks in _any | datacenter_ , it'd be necessary for dozens or hundreds of | different providers to all refuse access. That doesn't sound | like a "monopoly" to anyone who has a dictionary or | understands what "mono" means. | | If the bandwidth and power costs destroy them? Then maybe | they just don't have the resources to run their giant multi- | million-user Nazi site, and they should go out of business, | like all businesses that lack the resources to sustain | operations. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Fine, but even if we accept all that, Glenn's argument | that this is "monopolistic" doesn't pass the laugh test. | | Well, at least that it's an SV monopoly. | | If the reason that so many businesses are cutting service | and not just to Parler is that, in the wake of the Capitol | attacks corporate counsel have taken note of the law on | knowing material support to terrorists, which includes | supplying essentially any service when you know of it's use | in connection with a wide array of federal criminal | offenses that are designated as "terrorism", then there is | a monopoly denying them service, and it's the monopoly on | legitimate force held by the US government. | dredmorbius wrote: | Generally agreed. Another distinct possibility being that | there's a legal / national security interest, no longer subject | to Trump's obstruction, compelling action. | | Greenwald is _way_ out over his skis, with ample invective but | thin ecidence. | | And yes, some bit definitely seems to have flipped. Use ECC RAM | and validate your hashes, peeps. | bun_at_work wrote: | > In August, 2018, they created a social media platform similar | to Twitter but which promised far greater privacy protections, | including a refusal to aggregate user data in order to monetize | them to advertisers or algorithmically evaluate their interests | in order to promote content or products to them. | | Sure, Parler isn't going to serve you a custom feed with that | data, but what are they doing with it? They collect an insane | amount of PII to create an account, when compared with | alternatives Reddit and Twitter. | | On another note, this whole article is written in bad faith: | | - The AppStore screen shot shows Parler at the top of the social | media list on Jan 8th, when it was trending because the impending | ban, but the image is intended to show Parler as a more popular | app. Bad Faith. | | - The claim that there was a united attack is unsubstantiated, | and, in order with Occam's Razor, it is far more believable that | these companies banned their support of Parler as a response to | violations of ToS from those companies than any sort of | conspiracy. | | - In referencing the Congressional report on anti-competitive | practices, the article seeks to conflate the actions taken | against Parler with anti-competitive behavior. This doesn't come | close to being anti-competitive. ToS were violated, and private | companies have to right to not host whatever they want, and the | right to moderate it however they want. | | - The article seeks to conflate the actions of some mega | corporations with _all_ liberals, claiming all liberals cheered | for this. That is also unsubstantiated mudslinging. | | - The article overall seeks to conflate freedom of speech with | access to private platforms and mass audiences. This is not the | reality. Parler itself may have promoted itself as a free-speech | platform, but that was only true if you agreed with the common | opinion on the platform, and anyone who promoted dissenting ideas | there were banned. | | The whole article is a bad-faith farce, and should be treated as | such. Ignore it. | | There are real points to be made about how the behavior of these | companies might impact discourse, whether they have too much | power, and more. However, this bad faith argument is a | distraction from meaningful discourse. | squibbles wrote: | >The whole article is a bad-faith farce, and should be treated | as such. Ignore it. > >There are real points to be made about | how the behavior of these companies might impact discourse, | whether they have too much power, and more. However, this bad | faith argument is a distraction from meaningful discourse. | | I disagree that the article distracts from meaningful | discourse. To the contrary, the article has elicited a great | deal of meaningful discourse (in these HN threads) that helps | us examine the role of social media in modern society. | vernie wrote: | Greenwald flushed his whole-ass reputation down the toilet for | Trump, much like Giuliani. Ya hate to see it. | jimmy2020 wrote: | Why this post is flagged? HN, If you don't like the post, please | ignore it don't enforce censorship with flagging. | jimmy2020 wrote: | Wow, just keep getting downvoted because I think we should be | allowed to criticize and discuss big tech decisions on the | biggest community for tech. Thanks! | Miner49er wrote: | Glenn is wrong that Parler is pro-free speech. They censor all | kinds of things, including those with different political views. | | https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200630/23525844821/parle... | jandrese wrote: | Does anybody know a place where moderate conservative can have | adult conversations? No Q-Anon nonsense. No white supremacy. No | baseless accusations against political opponents. A place where | people carefully consider their positions, post research from | reputable sources, and avoid the absolute nuttery that infests | all of the conservative spaces on Reddit, Parler, Facebook, | Twitter, etc...? | | One of the reasons moderate Republicans are going the way of the | Dodo is they have no place to form a community. It seems like | every time someone starts one the entire place immediately veers | off into whackjob city. | defen wrote: | No, because "moderate conservative" is not a stable political | position, at least as far as social issues go. It really | consists of people who are comfortable with things how they are | and who oppose liberal attempts to remove unprincipled | exceptions to liberalism. Liberals have a vision of what they | are fighting _for_ , conservatives only have something they are | fighting _against_. The one exception to this which has had | some political success is abortion, because it has been | successfully framed as fighting _for_ the rights of the unborn. | | Consider the "moderate conservative" opinion 100 years ago on | women having the vote; compared to today's moderate | conservative. Or on segregation 60 years ago. Or on gay | marriage 20 years ago. Or on transgender issues today vs what | will be considered "moderate conservative" 20 years from now. | | The only cohesion they _do_ have is on economic issues, but | people are finally starting to realize that it 's been a grift | all along, perpetuated by big business and conservative | establishment elites. "We'll pander to you on social issues | (and then fold like a house of cards) in exchange for moving | your job overseas, importing workers to reduce labor costs, and | lowering taxes on the rich" | | So given this loss of trust in the conservative establishment, | people find themselves rootless and end up finding a community | in this sort of nuttery (whether it be Q-Anon or ethnostate | fantasies). Barring a return to throne-and-altar conservatism | (which seems unlikely) I don't see it getting better any time | soon. | jandrese wrote: | It doesn't have to be a "stable" political position for | people to have principled discussion. In fact I'd expect any | community to drift as the norms of society change. Granted, | Conservatives should resist such change because that's what | it means to be conservative, but it doesn't mean you set a | marker in the sand and never deviate. That would be | reactionary. | igammarays wrote: | Whack-a-mole. Users will move to decentralized platforms or other | providers in no time. In the past 72 hours alone, more than 25 | million new users from around the world joined Telegram, an app | built by Russians. | RIMR wrote: | This may be true, but this is a lousy excuse for tolerating | Nazis on your platform. | | Sure, banning a Nazi from Twitter doesn't actually kill the | Nazi. They still exist, they still have Internet access, and | they're still filled with hate. But at least they're not on | Twitter anymore. | | And when AWS sees that they're flocking to a hate site hosted | on their platform, there's no reason they have to tolerate it. | Sure, they'll go somewhere else, and maybe the hate site will | find a new hosting provider, but at least they aren't hosted on | AWS anymore. | | If we have to play an constant game of Whack-a-Nazi, I vote we | whack as many Nazis as we can. | 6sup6 wrote: | Will you also include communists in your game? I'm asking | this because many countries had "beautiful experiences" while | being governed by communists. | cccc4all wrote: | In your worldview, how many people are Nazis? Is it | thousands, Millions, Billions? | | What will you do when you find out that a family member or | friend or neighbor is a "Nazi"? | arbuge wrote: | > "That is because three Silicon Valley monopolies -- Amazon, | Google and Apple -- abruptly united to remove Parler from the | internet, exactly at the moment when it became the most- | downloaded app in the country. If one were looking for evidence | to demonstrate that these tech behemoths are, in fact, monopolies | that engage in anti-competitive behavior in violation of | antitrust laws, and will obliterate any attempt to compete with | them in the marketplace, it would be difficult to imagine | anything more compelling than how they just used their | unconstrained power to utterly destroy a rising competitor." | | I'm not buying the premise of this argument. If anything, Parler, | a social network, was a (diminutive) competitor to Facebook and | Twitter. Amazon, Google and Apple do not come to mind as | companies standing to gain by destroying it. | | The author seems to have an axe to grind against companies he | perceives as monopolies and is stretching the facts to support | his world view. | ketamine__ wrote: | Parler isn't competing with Twitter. The users on Parler are | persona non grata on Twitter. | totalZero wrote: | My own personal speculation: | | The timeline of events almost feels like Google, Apple, and | Amazon took those steps as part of a means to convince Twitter | to commit to a ban. | | Without Parler, Twitter is able to stem any right-wing exodus | due to a Trump ban. | syngrog66 wrote: | The pattern of evidence is consistent with Parler being part of | Russia's disinfo/anti-democracy attack on the US, along with | their asset Trump himself. I cant prove this 100% but is the wise | way to bet, given the total context. | theandrewbailey wrote: | > And in part it is because the Democrats are about to control | the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress, leaving Silicon | Valley giants eager to please them by silencing their | adversaries. | | The Biden Administration is getting stuffed with corporate | executives and lobbyists of all kinds. If that alleged quote | about fascism being the merger of corporate and state power, then | congratulations, fascists! You won. | | And if that quote is wrong, this situation is still bad, way | worse than Trump. | whateveracct wrote: | Trump was a kleptocrat. | brlewis wrote: | Here is the most important paragraph in the article. Can anyone | confirm or refute the part about Parler's TOS and moderation? | | _It is true that one can find postings on Parler that explicitly | advocate violence or are otherwise grotesque. But that is even | more true of Facebook, Google-owned YouTube, and Twitter. And | contrary to what many have been led to believe, Parler's Terms of | Service includes a ban on explicit advocacy of violence, and they | employ a team of paid, trained moderators who delete such | postings. Those deletions do not happen perfectly or | instantaneously -- which is why one can find postings that | violate those rules -- but the same is true of every major | Silicon Valley platform._ | germinalphrase wrote: | I cannot; however, I heard the CEO of Parler say on a podcast | on Jan 7 that moderation decisions were made by (I'm | paraphrasing as closely as I can) "a random jury of the user's | peers. If the jury decides the content doesn't break the TOS, | it remains". | [deleted] | ainiriand wrote: | To be honest, I am glad they did. I am sick and tired of these | people finding that there are loopholes in which they can hide | their hate speech and fascist rhetoric. | baxtr wrote: | I can understand why you might feel that way. At the same time, | I think censorship on an infrastructure level sets a very | strong precedent. I think infrastructure players should refrain | completely from that kind of action. | ainiriand wrote: | Sorry, I don't think that is censorship. It is just the bar | owner deciding he had enough about you insulting the patrons | and kicked you out, but you can keep saying your shit. Just | not in his bar. | titzer wrote: | I think we disagree on what censorship means. To me, | censorship very clearly means an active effort to go out and | eliminate a particular type of speech or a particular | speaker. That means going out and finding that speech or | speaker and shutting them down, everywhere. | | In this instance, a platform decides, effectively "we refuse | to host your ideas, go elsewhere." Facebook and Google and | Twitter aren't going out of their way to scrub these people | off the internet; they are just kicking them off their own | platform. | | You might consider this part of the "cancel culture", but | it's not censorship. | anthonyrstevens wrote: | AWS and Twitter are not infrastructure. Electricity and | telecoms are infrastructure. | mind-blight wrote: | I just don't think AWS should be considered core | infrastructure. ISPs are definitely core infra, which is why | I think net neutrality is so important. Domain name | registrars and CC processors are a bit of a grey area for me, | since those gate access to the internet and online financial | services respectively, but there's plenty of precedent for | blocking certain businesses from both of those services. | | AWS is great the servers you run. Those can be anywhere on | earth, including physically located at your business | PretzelFisch wrote: | At the end of the day if my buisness is hosting something the | market does not like, my buisness will suffer. It becomes | harder to retain and attract new customers and grow my | buisness and interfers with my marketing messaging. We live | in a capitalistic society this is how the free market works. | diegoholiveira wrote: | This power could be used to sensor you in the future. This | power could be put in the hands of a group of people who thinks | completely different from you. | whatisthiseven wrote: | That power has always existed, and could have always been | used "by those who think completely different" from us. If | they think that differently, then they wouldn't even think | twice about using said power to censor. | | In this case, Twitter et al. thought a LOT about what to do, | as they did very little for 4 year's of Trump's presidency, | and only decided to act after Trump incited a literal self- | coup and insurrection with the goal of illegitimately keeping | himself in power. | | If in the future "those who think completely differently from | me" are going to think liberal ideas are so dangerous to be | removed, it won't matter what "standard" we set today. It | seems even with the highest standard of "don't support open | coups", you still think I will be judged the _exact_ same. | | Censorship is bad. But insurrections against legitimate | governments are worse. | diegoholiveira wrote: | I do agree 100% with you. That's why I do think we need to | decrease the power of the state and also the power of the | corporations using a modern antitrust law. If they power | continues to grow, we'll live in a totalitarian state, | dictate by politicians and corporations together. | filleduchaos wrote: | Honestly, where on earth have you people been? Tech companies | have been "censoring" all sorts of people they deem | undesirable for _years_ , why is it the literal terrorist | white supremacists that caused everyone to sit up and notice? | mcfly1985 wrote: | Fuck you fascist. | ryan_j_naughton wrote: | I'm more concerned about the app store bans than AWS ban. | | The app stores are true monopolies that as gatekeepers to users | loading apps on phones (particularly so in apple's case). There | isn't really any alternative to them. | | In contrast, a hosting solution can be swapped out for another | hosting solution. While non-trivial (especially if you are using | a bunch of AWS specific services), there are viable solutions. | | Parler has already found a new hosting solution with epik. [1] | | Given that anyone can host a website (potentially even by buying | their own bare metal hardware and procuring IP addresses), then | one always has the ability to disseminate one's ideas. The | "public square" equivalent is simply having your content online | as it is available for all to read / consume. | | That does not entitle you to speech on other people's platforms. | That is the equivalent of saying you should have the right to go | into a private venue, hosting a private event, and espouse your | ideas. | | I've long thought that we should reinterpret campaign finance law | from this perspective. Specifically, that because the internet | enables anyone to get their ideas published and accessible, then | we should remove the ability of political campaigns to buy ANY | advertisements. Having the right to speak should not be expanded | to having the right to BUY eyeballs / impressions. You should be | able to speak all you want, freely, on the internet. But all | traffic should be earned, organic traffic from folks actually | wanting to listen to you. | | The ability to use targeted advertising to target specific | messages to specific political segments seems disingenuous. It | allows the politician to choose their voter instead of the voter | to choose to listen to their politician. It is like digital | gerrymandering. | | Given that a politician can easily host videos, content, etc that | can literally be consumed by the entire planet with relative ease | (not to belittle the complexity of youtube), free speech exists | fundamentally in the foundation of the internet / web. | | Attacks on those fundamental components of the internet are | concerning though. For example, SciHub having its domain names | revoked and thus being unable to have DNS properly route to their | servers is of grave concern. But the recent developments of | NextDNS and similar decentralized DNS solutions are promising | [2]. | | [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/parler-moves-to-epik- | domain-... | | [2] https://www.coindesk.com/pirated-academic-sci-hub-handshake | yoav wrote: | Ya why would AWS have any reason to stop providing service to a | customer who didn't follow their terms of service and took pride | in a festering a community of terrorists who are now making | credible threats to attack aws and recently tried to overthrow | the US government in a violent coup. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25745908 | | The mental gymnastics of the people defending Parler on here are | wild. If Parler was a community of ISIS or any non-white non- | christian extremists none of y'all would be insisting on Apple or | Amazon's requirement to do business with them and be complicit. | igammarays wrote: | > festering a community of terrorists | | This is what it feels like to live in a country like China, | where if you criticize the government, or question the dominant | narrative, or call for regime change, you are called a | "terrorist" and denied basic rights like expression and put on | no-fly lists. Anti-government rhetoric is routinely suppressed, | fire-walled, and forced out. Are you sure that is what you | want? | eximius wrote: | Okay, sure, China is scary _but Parler was literally doing | those things_. This was not some overreaction, this is not | ostracizing mere disagreeing philosophies, this is not like | Trump calling the media the enemy of the people. They | literally were plotting kidnapping, murder, and sedition. | This is an _appropriate response_. | [deleted] | zmmmmm wrote: | There is a qualitative difference between concretely planning | an attack and the things you describe. I am taking the | platform's statements at face value, but what I understand is | that they observed concrete, specific planning to coordinate | a physical attack on US democratic institutions. In that | sense, this is not about free speech at all. The actions | taken were done with intent of preventing violence, not | speech. | evgen wrote: | And then when you take up arms and commit sedition you get to | act all surprised that actions have consequences. The people | who invaded the US Capitol building ARE TERRORISTS. Pure and | simple. They should be put on no-fly lists and denied basic | rights like the right to exist outside of a small cell (after | they are tried and convicted for their crimes.) | | This is what it feels like to live in a country which tries | to uphold the rule of law. Sorry if it inconveniences you, | but not sorry. | igammarays wrote: | I absolutely agree that those who advocated for violent | acts should be investigated and punished. Go after those | authors on Parler. But shutting down an entire platform, | which is used by lots of other people who are NOT violent, | on the basis of some violent posts? You can find far worse | content on Facebook, are you going to advocate shutting | down the whole platform? | fimoreth wrote: | Facebook and Twitter do not have the violent posts solved | by any measure. But at the very least they make the | gestures and put money towards trying to fix it. | | Parler has been vocal that they have no plans solving it. | If they had at least showed some vague plan to resolve | it, they would have earned some sympathy. | [deleted] | eximius wrote: | And Twitter while we're at it /s | rvn1045 wrote: | Did you see the images of these so called terrorists? They | have committed an illegal act by trespassing on government | property but to call them seditious terrorists is a bit too | far fetched. They're a bunch of clowns who happened to | storm the capitol. | [deleted] | OniBait wrote: | Some of my favorites are the little old lady carrying a | little American flag, the people walking in a line | between the roped off areas and the folks cleaning up | after a couple of trash cans got overturned. | | Seemed incredibly tame compared to the riots that went on | over the summer that had massive amounts of looting and | had buildings burnt to the ground. | solidasparagus wrote: | I dunno. I think once you build a gallows, hang a noose | on it, and start chanting about hanging someone as you | push against barricaded doors where that person is | sheltering, tame is no longer is quite the right word. | fphhotchips wrote: | I'm not American, but what I saw on my TV last week was | an outgoing President organising an armed mob outside the | seat of Government and inciting them to disrupt the | democratic transition of power. There were people inside | the building that were clearly intending to take | hostages. | | There was a _gallows_ out the front. | | In any other nation on earth, this was an attempted coup. | Just because it failed doesn't mean that those involved | didn't have intent. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Well, it was a very incompetent coup. If Trump really | intended a coup, he should have had friendly military | embedded among the rioters. He shouldn't have said "now | go home". It's a very half-hearted coup on the part of | the president. | | Note well: I am far from saying that Trump is innocent. | He absolutely should have known that his words would | incite violence. In the most charitable light possible, | he's still clueless about the effect his words would | have. (I could kind of see his intent being to use the | mob to pressure Congress, so that they would be inclined | to see it Trump's way. He may have intended the mob | surrounding the Capitol, but not the breach... in a very | charitable interpretation. Even in that interpretation, | though, he still very dangerously misjudged the effects | of his words.) | | And Trump may well be guilty of more than that. He may | well be guilty of attempting a coup to remain in power, | and just not have had any idea of how to do it right. (I | prefer that rogues be incompetent...) | akiselev wrote: | The Armed Forces [1], Capitol Police [2], and other law | enforcement agencies around the country are investigating | the participation of their members. It's going to take a | while to sort everything out, but I'm betting it's more | sinister than it appears give the gallows, flex cuffs, | the former AF officers in tacticool gear, and the general | rhetoric. | | [1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/military- | investigating-servi... | | [2] https://www.wesh.com/article/2-capitol-police- | officers-suspe... | dragonwriter wrote: | > If Trump really intended a coup, he should have had | friendly military embedded among the rioters. | | There were military personnel friendly to Trump among | them. | | > He shouldn't have said "now go home". | | I may be confused on the timeline; wasn't that after | members and electoral votes had been evacuated safely so | the people overtly calling to execute the Speaker and VP, | or otherwise plotting to capture, injure, or intimidate | members, or destroy the electoral vote certificates to | provide a pretext for their Congressional allies to | resort to a vote-by-states in the absence of certified | votes or to count the votes with selected states excluded | had already failed? | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Could be; I'm not sure. Still, at that point, saying "Go | look in the House Office Building" (or wherever - I have | no actual idea) would have been a better move for someone | attempting an actual coup. | | But a cynic could easily think that Trump could tell that | sufficient force was arriving to stop the mob, and that | cutting his losses was therefore his best option at that | point, even if he were really trying to do a coup... | danans wrote: | > They're a bunch of clowns who happened to storm the | capitol. | | Clowns who beat a police officer to death with a fire | extinguisher, planted pipe bombs, and roamed the capitol | with sidearms and zip ties to take hostages. | | Still sure they're just clowns? | rvn1045 wrote: | Not denying that part of the group became violent. They | should absolutely charged with whatever crimes they | committed. But a lot of the reaction to them is a | coordinated theatre by the left to make it seem much much | worse that it was. Part of the strategy to make things | seem worse then they are is to use words like sedition, | insurrection etc | danans wrote: | They didn't "become" violent. It was an organized attempt | to prevent the lawfully elected head of state from being | certified and overthrow American democracy using | violence. | | Even the least violent among them committed a felony by | entering the Capitol building. That someone else broke | the window they entered doesn't make their entry any less | illegal. | rvn1045 wrote: | Inserrectionists who stormed the capitol to take Congress | people hostage and stop the vote got distracted by posing | for the cameras, taking selfies and casually enjoying | themselves | pii wrote: | It was an organized insurrection surrounded by a circus | [deleted] | reaperducer wrote: | _This is what it feels like to live in a country like China, | where if you criticize the government, or question the | dominant narrative, or call for regime change, you are called | a "terrorist"_ | | There's a big difference between criticizing the government | and storming the capitol. | | Talk all you want. Engage in constructive debate. Run for | office. Change laws through the system. All of those things | are OK in the United States. | | Dragging a police officer down the stairs and beating him | with a flag pole is not OK in the United States. | [deleted] | dionian wrote: | Claiming 75 million people are terrorists without evidence is a | bold move. | jonathantm wrote: | You forgot that the government forces everybody to use a single | service, and will sent a SWAT team to any company not using | AWS. | | /s | mhh__ wrote: | Greenwald isn't doing mental gymnastics, this is just where | he's laid his eggs now. | | He is full in-bed with this crowd, constantly spreading FUD | about criticism of Trump, etc. | mitchs wrote: | I was initially troubled by the booting of Parler, but I've | come around to seeing AWS's position as similar to the payment | processors who don't want to deal with porn sites. Doing | business with some clients creates risks. Traditional players | don't want to deal with risky clients, but there are | specialized services who are willing to take them. However, | they are more expensive for the same nominal service (because | of the risks.) While the payment processors are dealing with | frequent charge-backs, the risks I'd see in hosting Parler are | more about liability and litigation. | | There are clearly hosting providers (like Epik) who would be | willing to take them on as clients from the start. If you read | AWS's acceptable use policy, and then read the Parler's TOS, it | is clear AWS was a terrible match as a hosting provider. By my | read, AWS doesn't want to deal with anything that can be | construed as "harmful" where Parler only forbade directly | illegal behavior. (And it is apparent they barely felt a | responsibility to moderate even to that level.) This was never | going to work. Jan 6 brought things to a head, but as I see it, | this business relationship was doomed from the start. | | (I work for Amazon, these opinions are my own.) | dang wrote: | Please make your substantive points without posting in the | flamewar style. We're trying to avoid the latter here because | it destroys what HN is supposed to be for: curious, thoughtful | conversation about interesting things. | | When accounts build up a track record of flamewar, snark, | political/ideological battle, and other things that break the | site guidelines, we ban them. We have to, because otherwise | this place will be engulfed by hellfire and then become | scorched earth. Those things may be exciting and/or activating | for a while, but they're not interesting. | | If you wouldn't mind reviewing | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the | intended spirit of this site to heart, we'd be grateful. You | can still express your views in that spirit, as many other HN | users have been showing. | brodouevencode wrote: | Completely not true. ISIS, Hamas, and other Wahhabistic groups | still maintain a very large presence on these platforms. A | little closer to home, riots and looting were planned in real | time on Twitter. It's admittedly a very hard problem to solve. | [deleted] | jmeister wrote: | See also Facebook in Myanmar: | | https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934 | awillen wrote: | How about some examples of ISIS using AWS? | amadeuspagel wrote: | ISIS uses AWS in the same sense the capitol hill rioters | did, via services like twitter that are hosted on AWS.[1] | | [1]: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_re | ports/... | dboreham wrote: | == they don't use AWS. | hnburnsy wrote: | I do not know if Twitter uses AWS now but it looks like | they will be, I believe that Parler mentioned it in the | lawsuit it filed. | | 'Amazon.com Inc.'s AMZN, Amazon Web Services announced | Tuesday that Twitter Inc. would be using its cloud | services to support its delivery of users' timeliness.' | | https://www.marketwatch.com/story/aws-says-twitter-will- | use-... | watwut wrote: | Twitter was closing ISIS accounts a lot. Twitter was not | "free speech except illegal" platform for ISIS _at all_. | meheleventyone wrote: | In 2018 Twitter banned over 1 million ISIS linked | accounts. Prior to that they banned hundreds of | thousands. Without much of a peep from the free speech | fundamentalists. | kansface wrote: | Back in 2014, ~50K accounts were posting support for | ISIS. Parlor got one day's notice. How much notice did | twitter get before the liberal consensus was to remove it | from the Internet for inciting hate? | | https://www.brookings.edu/wp- | content/uploads/2016/06/isis_tw... | mthoms wrote: | >Parlor got one day's notice. | | Not true. AWS has been working with Parler for "several | weeks" [0] to help it comply with their TOS. Not only did | they fail to remove the posts Amazon provided, the calls | for violence on their platform got _worse_ during that | time. | | https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazo | n-p... | aeturnum wrote: | If you're really going to go down this line of argument - | do you think it's incorrect to say that AWS banned Parler | because the Parler team can still 'use' AWS through | twitter? | amadeuspagel wrote: | I'm not sure what the point of this nitpicking is. The | context of this conversation is someone asking for an | example of ISIS using AWS, in a conversation about the | capitol hill rioters "using" AWS. And my response is that | they indeed use it in the same way. Now, if you want to | argue that this doesn't in fact constitute "using", then | the capitol hill rioters didn't use AWS either, and AWS | isn't responsible for them. | aeturnum wrote: | I think we have different reads of the root comment of | this thread. Yoav[1] was talking about the contract | between AWS and Parler as corporate entities. I'm not | sure how you made the leap from organizational | relationships to individuals using services implemented | on AWS. | | That's why I asked about members of Parler still being | able to "use" AWS through other AWS-hosted services. I | don't get what you're driving at. | | > AWS isn't responsible for them. | | Again, I'm not sure I understand what point this is | responding to. No one is claiming AWS is responsible for | the capital hill folks. They are claiming that Parler | bears some responsibility and did so in such a way that | violated AWS' policies. So AWS banned them. | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25748097 | amadeuspagel wrote: | > The mental gymnastics of the people defending Parler on here | are wild. If Parler was a community of ISIS or any non-white | non-christian extremists none of y'all would be insisting on | Apple or Amazon's requirement to do business with them and be | complicit. | | This is a very typical of the drivel from the pro censorship | crowd. Not even an attempt to formulate any coherent principle, | just acccusations of bad faith, hypocrisy and racism, without | any evidence whatsoever. This is the top comment as I'm writing | this. This is apparently the best defense they have to offer. | readflaggedcomm wrote: | Anti-fascism is a coherent principle. | amadeuspagel wrote: | That anything is justified as long as it's done in the same | of anti-fascism is indeed a coherent principle, though not | exactly one with a noble history. The official name of the | Berlin Wall was Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart[1]. | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall | deeeeplearning wrote: | Aww are you sad that Stormfront 2.0 got banned and you can't | be a closet Nazi with your friends anymore? How sad. | kordlessagain wrote: | Can someone flag this please? Seems to be violating the code | of conduct on HN given it is attacking a user here. | FriendlyNormie wrote: | You'd look good with a serrated 7 inch SOG knife buried all | the way into your neck. | noarchy wrote: | The evidence is now hidden in terms of linking to Parler | itself, but people took screenshots of the things being | posted on Parler. | | There were open calls for murder and violence. This not | protected speech even if it was in a genuinely public forum. | guidovranken wrote: | You can post outrageously racist, threatening hate speech | on @jack's Internet Hate Machine all day long as long as | you're attacking the race on which the woke hive mind has | unanimously agreed that it is deserving of eternal | deprecation and punishment on the basis of their melanin | alone. https://i.imgur.com/fjbhBms.jpg | | As improbable as it sounds there are people who would much | rather live in a world where people are judged on the basis | of their character, instead of a race and gender based | purity spiral, and those indeed constituted the majority of | the Parler userbase when I spent some short time there. | esoterica wrote: | I suppose it's very difficult for some people to notice | hate when it's only directed at other people, not them. | amadeuspagel wrote: | > If Parler was a community of ISIS or any non-white non- | christian extremists none of y'all would be insisting on | Apple or Amazon's requirement to do business with them and | be complicit. | | This is the accusation without evidence that I'm talking | about. It's not an accusation against random parler users, | but an accusation against those of us who do not think that | AWS should decide what's allowed on the internet. | swiley wrote: | I'm by no means a parlor fan and don't think they really | stood for free speech as much as something else. | | But: there are open calls for murder and violence on | literally every internet forum. I've seen them on | hackernews even! | d357r0y3r wrote: | I can show you screenshots of tweets that are as bad or | worse. The difference is that Twitter actually has built | up, over time, the ability to moderate fairly well. | | The value of Twitter isn't really that you can post and | view small snippets of text. It's that they've developed | technology that allows them to effectively moderate. | | Any poorly moderated site eventually becomes associated | with the right. | noarchy wrote: | Agreed. One Parler, one could search for terms like | "execute" or "hang" and get _thousands_ of results. It | was a vile place. The owners of the site have chosen to | die on the hill of protecting that as "free speech". | enraged_camel wrote: | >>Not even an attempt to formulate any coherent principle, | just acccusations of bad faith, hypocrisy and racism, without | any evidence whatsoever. | | The US Capitol got breached and looted by deranged | insurrectionists on January 6th, 2021. There was a guy | walking with a _Confederate flag_ inside the building. And | they were all supported and incited by many prominent | conservative figures, including current politicians. | Including the President himself. | | What other evidence do you need that these people have been | acting on bad faith, hypocrisy and racism? | amadeuspagel wrote: | > If Parler was a community of ISIS or any non-white non- | christian extremists none of y'all would be insisting on | Apple or Amazon's requirement to do business with them and | be complicit. | | This is the accusation of bad faith, hypocrisy and racism | that I'm talking about. It's not an accusation against | random parler users, but an accusation against those of us | who do not think that AWS should decide what's allowed on | the internet. | meheleventyone wrote: | Pointing out that people only care because they are | broadly sympathetic to Parler and the people on it isn't | untrue though. | [deleted] | dominicjj wrote: | There's nothing in the President's speech on the 6th that | called for violence. Not a word. See for yourself: | | https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech- | sav... | enraged_camel wrote: | Incorrect. | | https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/trump-speech- | riot.html | dominicjj wrote: | I can't read that because of the paywall but why should I | when I have the original? The original does not call for | violence. Case closed. | enraged_camel wrote: | Here are some relevant bits: -- | | "Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with | his hands tied behind his back. It's like a boxer. And we | want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of | everybody, including bad people. And we're going to have | to fight much harder. ... | | "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going | to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, | and 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." | | "I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I | hope so, because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we | win the election. ... And I actually -- I just spoke to | Mike. I said: 'Mike, that doesn't take courage. What | takes courage is to do nothing. That takes courage.'" | | "I also want to thank our 13 most courageous members of | the U.S. Senate, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Ron Johnson, | Senator Josh Hawley. ... Senators have stepped up. We | want to thank them. I actually think, though, it takes, | again, more courage not to step up, and I think a lot of | those people are going to find that out. And you better | start looking at your leadership, because your leadership | has led you down the tubes." | | "We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't | happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved. | Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, | and that is what this is all about. And to use a favorite | term that all of you people really came up with, we will | stop the steal. ... | | "You will have an illegitimate president. That is what | you will have, and we can't let that happen. These are | the facts that you won't hear from the fake news media. | It's all part of the suppression effort. They don't want | to talk about it. They don't want to talk about it. ... | | "We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, | you're not going to have a country anymore." | | --- | | This is incitement, pure and simple. I mean, look at this | shit: | | "We will never give up. We will never concede." | | "You will have an illegitimate president... and we can't | let that happen." | | "...if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to | have a country anymore." | | What else do you need? Are you looking for instances | where Trump told the crowd to attack and breach the | Capitol before you're convinced that he's guilty? | dionian wrote: | "fighting" is often used in a political context, we have | people on both sides of congress saying it publicly as | recently as 2020. This is constitutionally-protected | political speech. | | Your case would be much stronger had Trump not explicitly | said people should go "peacefully". | dominicjj wrote: | That's exactly what I'm looking for: evidence that he | told the crowd to attack and breach the Capitol. Because | there isn't any and yet that's what he's being accused of | in the media. You are of course welcome to read these | words and interpret them any way you see fit but I don't | see any incitement or calls for violence here. Neither | would a court. | OniBait wrote: | None of those sound all that inflammatory. Mostly just | political rhetoric. | | "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going | to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, | and 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." -- In context, he is saying: "Cheer for the | Republicans in congress, maybe not so much for the ones | who aren't backing me because they aren't showing | strength" -- nothing about that seems like it is | incitement. | | Yet somehow Democrats saying worse things is applauded. | Compare that to where actual violence is implied: "If you | see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a | department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and | you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you | tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." - | Maxine Waters "Go to the Hill today. Please, get up in | the face of some congresspeople." - Cory Booker "We owe | the American people to be there for them, for their | financial security, respecting the dignity and worth of | every person in our country, and if there is some | collateral damage for some others who do not share our | view, well, so be it, but it shouldn't be our original | purpose." - Nancy Pelosi | potatoz2 wrote: | If I convince you falsely and knowingly that someone has | tortured and murdered your child and I tell you "we can't | let that happen, the courts won't do anything, we have to | fight much harder, he's at this restaurant right now, you | should go" and you go and kill or maim that person, am I | not responsible in your mind? | dominicjj wrote: | Falsely and knowingly doesn't enter into it. I've never | seen a more fraudulent election in my life and I used to | monitor elections in Africa for a living. Seriously, this | was a steal that would make Robert Mugabe proud. | Bhilai wrote: | Come on now. The President and prominent republicans and | their allies fanned enough flames by claiming election | was stolen. Its not one speech or one instance, its the | collective narrative thats been going around since the | time it was clear that Trump is going to be on the losing | side. | dominicjj wrote: | I used to oversee elections in the Third World and Nov 3, | 2020 was the most fraudulent election in recorded history | in my humble opinion. You are of course welcome to deny | the overwhelming evidence of this but it won't make any | difference to what happens in a few days time. | weeboid wrote: | It's the thinking where 100% of the product should be designed | around 1% edge cases | owlbynight wrote: | Our political representatives are corrupt and generally represent | whomever gives them the most money, namely large corporations. | | We, the people, are represented through our wallets now by the | corporations that control our politicians because social media | has unionized us. We're able to use online platforms to leverage | companies into giving us what we want socially by threatening | them when they step out of line. The companies that led to Parler | shutting down were acting on public sentiment as a boon to their | brands, thus ultimately reflecting the will of the people. | | It's kind of like a single payer system for social justice. | | It's weird end run back to representation but I'll take it for | now. The radical right is a scourge that, unchecked, will lead to | us having no rights at all. They need to be repeatedly smacked | down until normalcy is achieved. | stuart78 wrote: | This take strikes my as a bit absurd. You have to take a pretty | all-encompassing view of 'tech' for it to make sense. Apple | success on the shoulders of a wide app developer ecosystem, not | on the narrower set of other tech titans. Google, via Android, is | in a similar spot. And AWS is even further afield. | | Two names not included in the de-platforming accusations here are | Facebook and Twitter. If anybody of the tech titans were to | benefit from this cynical take on the actions against Parler, it | was them. | | SV is not one entity, and each of the five listed above has very | different goals for themselves, so I'm pretty skeptical of this | conspiratorial perspective. | | I understand the sense that these things are monopolistic, but of | course there are real alternatives. They are harder, and more | expensive, but the cost is borne by the transgressor of pretty | reasonable common norms (don't tolerate promotion of violence). | | Parler gets to join Stormfront and all the torrent sites on the | lower decks not because Apple, Google and Amazon are knocking out | nascent competition, but because those sites violate reasonable, | privately set and moderated rules. | jacksonkmarley wrote: | The discussion here focuses on the free speech aspect of online | platforms as applied to private companies. This seems like a | topic where a political solution is called for, as there seems to | be enough opinion on both sides to warrant an examination of the | current laws. Certainly many people seem to feel that somehow | these social media platforms now represent a type of public | platform. | | I wonder if the united States at this point is capable of that | discussion? In a healthy democratic political process as applied | to this issue, there probably needs to be input from both the | free speech side and the societal protection side, and some | compromise legal solution reached. | | If Biden follows through on his rhetoric that seems possible, but | that seems like a big if, with political power apparently firmly | in Democratic hands for the next couple of years at least. | DeafSquid wrote: | They can run their site on their own servers. Nobody should be | forced to host content they don't agree with. | snikeris wrote: | Why is this flagged? | mattbee wrote: | Probably the rep of Greenwald, a notably "former journalist". | (it's unflagged right now) | brodouevencode wrote: | It's such a polarizing topic that anyone with a slightly | opposing viewpoint will immediately recoil in disgust, for the | most part. | bjornsing wrote: | I have no idea... but I'd sure like to know. | CivBase wrote: | I've seen a lot of people say Parler was intentionally designed | to host morally objectionable content and that they refused to | moderate it. Many arguments supporting the de-platforming of | Parler hinge on those assertions. | | I have not seen any evidence backing up those claims, but that | doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you're aware of any such | evidence, could you please post it? I'd honestly just like to | understand the situation better. | | In the absence of such evidence, I see two plausible | explanations: | | 1.) Parler was a small-scale operation (30 employees from what | I've heard) who built a social media platform intended to appeal | to pro-Trump conservatives by tolerating a higher degree of free | speech compared to the likes of established social media | platforms. It became very popular very quickly and speech on the | platform became increasingly violent. Parler's relatively small | team was unable to keep up with moderating so much content, which | enabled a lot of extremist calls for violence to propagate. Since | they could not keep up with AWS's requests to moderate their | platform and it was facing public scrutiy after events at the | capitol, AWS pulled the plug. | | 2.) Parler was intended as a platform for violent, pro-Trump | extremists and used "free speech" as a week justification to not | moderate their platform. It became very popular very quickly and | speech on the platform became increasingly violent. Parler still | refused to moderate the platform even after events at the | capitol, so AWS pulled the plug. | | AWS is not necessarily in the wrong in either case. However, the | optics for Parler looks very different between the scenarios. | amanaplanacanal wrote: | I thought the owner said he didn't want to moderate, not that | he was unable to. | CivBase wrote: | Did he? That may be true, but I've heard conflicting stories, | which is why I'm asking for evidence one way or the other. | justinzollars wrote: | I for one excited about the decentralized tools that will be | developed and adopted as a result of Silicon Valley's censorship. | fblp wrote: | The author uses the word "united" liberally, implying there was | some kind of collusion between Amazon, Apple and Google. I would | imagine it was quite the opposite, they each would have | independently banned/limited Parler regardless of what the other | company did. Parler also doesn't compete with any of those | companies. It competes with Facebook and Twitter. So where's the | anti-competitive conduct? | saagarjha wrote: | Generally services look at each other when deciding to ban | things. | MattGaiser wrote: | The guy with no shirt and no shoes does not have an anti | trust lawsuit because McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's all | decided to prohibit his entry into their restaurants. | | Sometimes the customer is the reason they all make the same | decision. | bravo22 wrote: | That's if it is equally applied to everyone. Examples, | similar to yours, are used as basis of racial | discrimination lawsuits when the evidence shows that it is | selectively applied to a group of people. | kickopotomus wrote: | Discrimination is perfectly legal in the US. It is only | illegal if you discriminate against someone within a | protected class on the basis of them being a member of | that protected class. Political affiliation is not a | protected class. | helen___keller wrote: | > With virtual unanimity, leading U.S. liberals celebrated this | use of Silicon Valley monopoly power to shut down Parler | | Just to be clear, it's possible to detest silicon valley monopoly | power while celebrating the deplatforming of Parler in | particular. | | Antitrust is one concern, the risk of losing democracy to | political violence during a transition of power is a separate | concern. | jbrun wrote: | America is so blinded by their love of free speech they fail to | see that most countries operate quite well with modest limits on | speech. If American style free speech were so great the country | would not be tearing itself apart as we speak. | est wrote: | might as well add sendgrid, digitalocean, twilio, etc to that | list. | tristanb wrote: | Im glad it's gone. It was a vile cesspool of miss-information, | hate and violent fantasies. | | Whats next - havens for kiddy porn? | FredDollen wrote: | Think of this analogy: Almost every driver in the US breaks | traffic laws every time they drive. They speed, cross a line, | don't come to a complete stop at stop signs, etc. Imagine that | there was a company in charge of doling out violations, and only | conservative drivers were having their licenses revoked. | | Every platform has people who violate the TOS, and by that | standard, they all should be deplatformed. But that is not | happening. You cannot say with any level of proof that Parler was | worse at moderating content than any of the other social | platforms | viktorcode wrote: | From the piece: > It is true that one can find postings on Parler | that explicitly advocate violence or are otherwise grotesque. | | It is the same to me as saying "it is true one can find sexually | explicit images of children on a dark net pedo site". Parler was | made to harbour the kind of content which is getting purged by | any platform caring about not appearing as a Daily Stormer | outpost. | maxehmookau wrote: | I simply don't care. Sure, there's slippery slope arguments and | discussions to be had about who gets to decide what is and isn't | acceptable speech. | | Right now though there's a small group of people looking to cause | harm and damage using tools that barely existed 10 years ago and | our laws won't keep up. Antisemitism and racism have no place in | the world and private companies have no business profiting from | its proliferation. Silicon Valley wants to use its power to make | it harder for people with those views to meet, organize and share | their views? Crack on. | | I will use my limited resources and time on this planet to cry | for someone else. | pstuart wrote: | While I loath "think of the children!" arguments, I'll lower | myself to one here. | | Imagine that Parler was a site dedicated to child pornography. | Would anybody be complaining about it being shut down them? | | Hopefully not. My point is that what Parler represented was | _equally odious_. It 's a hate speech platform and hate speech | should not be tolerated. | Closi wrote: | Well hosting and distributing child pornography is illegal, | while hosting other people's hate speech isn't. | | And how is hosting hate speech "equally odious" to hosting | photos of abused children anyway?! | | You can use the same argument to abolish all free speech, | just by claiming that anything your opponent says is equal to | abusing children. | Clubber wrote: | He's using hyperbole to make the argument an emotional one | rather than using reason. I'm not sure if he even knows | he's doing it or not, the tactic of hyperbole has become so | prevalent in today's political discussions. | pstuart wrote: | We're on the precipice of a civil war that's being fanned | by this hate speech. I wish it were hyperbole. | pstuart wrote: | This is about morality, not legality (which is often | perverted anyway). | | Hate speech translates into hateful actions, case in point | was on display in the US Capitol last week. | | This is challenging territory but to frame this as a free | speech issue without acknowledging that there are limits to | such is not being entirely honest about the matter. | Closi wrote: | > This is about morality, not legality (which is often | perverted anyway). | | Well this is exactly the issue here - because unless you | believe in moral absolutism, why are these tech companies | suddenly the arbiter of morality? | Synaesthesia wrote: | Totally different thing. | bsirkia wrote: | I think this is generally right. We tend to focus on the one | side of the slippery slope which is "descent into an | Orwellian dystopia", but the other side of the logical | extreme is what, that no matter what private companies aren't | allowed to remove and censor certain things on their forums? | | Like you said, if there were an app where 90% of the | conversation was about child pornography, no one would cry | "1984" if it's removed by Apple. So we're just having a | conversation about where the line should be and if hate | speech and planning insurrection should meet that standard, | not beginning a rapid descent into thought control. | Clubber wrote: | >So we're just having a conversation about where the line | should be and if hate speech and planning insurrection | should meet that standard, not beginning a rapid descent | into thought control. | | It obviously is. It started with child pornography which | most everyone can agree on banning, now you are suggesting | we apply the same ban to political discussion. That's the | definition of a slippery slope in action. | pstuart wrote: | Not banning political discussion, it's about not | supporting hate speech. | | Parler wasn't banned, the market decided they wanted | nothing to do with it. | Closi wrote: | > The market decided they wanted nothing to do with it. | | I don't think this means what you think it means, because | it doesn't appear true. | | The market usually means 'the free market' i.e. raw | consumer demand - 'are people buying it?', 'vote with | your wallet' e.t.c., By all accounts it looked like the | market _did_ want it - because they had a rapidly growing | user base. Left to the free market, Parler would have | continued. | | The market does not mean the CEO's of other tech | companies want nothing to do with it. It also does not | mean that popular opinion is that it's bad. | pc86 wrote: | You do need a better argument, because you're changing the | entire point of the platform. | | One is speech - maybe hate, maybe political, maybe both - and | one is distribution of illegal products of child abuse. | They're not the same thing. They're not "equally odious" and | honestly it's pretty gross you'd even pretend they are. | protonimitate wrote: | HN users have read 1984 one too many times. | | It is possible to think that SV has too much power AND that | they still have the right to deem what is acceptable on their | own services. | | You can be entitled to free speech without being entitled to a | platform or an audience. Despite how much HN loves to bash on | SV big tech, this _isn 't_ 1984 and there are plenty of other | ways to spread hate if that's what you really want to support. | | I'm growing really weary from all the slippery- | slope/everything-is-being-censored/what-aboutism alarmist | arguments. | | There is quite a large spectrum between "any and all speech is | acceptable, on the platform of your choosing" and "total | censorship". Let's stop pretending its a binary choice. | chmod600 wrote: | It's not a slippery slope any more. We already fell off and | it just happens that the immediate casualty is Parler. But | real victims are not far behind (in fact, they already exist, | they are just not important enough). | chmod600 wrote: | It's not about crying for Parler. | | It's legitimate concern that we have passed new thresholds of | power, that the power can be exercised, and there's not much | anyone affected can do about it. | | Furthermore, it's disturbing how much those in power think -- | and act -- alike. Isn't it weird that nobody has really broken | ranks here? | RIMR wrote: | I agree with you 100%. There is absolutely no reason to care. | Nothing we're seeing from these tech companies is a threat to | our liberties. | | Getting banned from Twitter for violating the ToS is not | censorship. | | Getting your Twitter clone kicked off of AWS for violating the | ToS is not censorship. | | Companies refusing to do business with you on ethical grounds | is not censorship. | | Anyone calling what we're seeing this week "censorship" is | carrying water for fascists. | chaostheory wrote: | You will care when the other side is able to do the same thing | to us. I'm not necessarily talking about racists either. This | seems great until it's used against us. | filleduchaos wrote: | Who exactly is us, though? | | For example, I don't recall FOSTA/SESTA and its ramifications | generating anywhere _close_ to this level of breathless | outrage on HN. The leftists I know (actual leftists, not the | USA 's conflation of centrist ideals with leftism) are all | already very intimate with getting targeted and censored. Who | is the "us" whose unfiltered work/speech/views have always | been guaranteed a platform? | grej wrote: | I think (hope) everyone would agree that antisemitism and | racism have no place in the world. And it's easy not to care | when you earnestly believe the ends justify the means. | | But in practice, the risk is that these labels will be applied | much more liberally by self-interested parties precisely | because they are unquestionably bad and hard to refute. If | power hungry forces have access to a weapon which can be used | to shut down discourse with no due process, it will most | assuredly be used and create undesirable outcomes. | | IMO we should all take issue with the ability of a small | oligopoly to take these actions without any legal due process | or recourse. History shows us that this kind of power without | restriction in the hands of very few will lead to abuses. | qez wrote: | > Silicon Valley wants to use its power to make it harder for | people with those views to meet, organize and share their | views? Crack on. | | No, they should not be doing that. It shouldn't even be legal | for Silicon Valley to do that. I don't care that you describe | the people being censored as having negative traits, that is | your political opinion. | pc86 wrote: | Why shouldn't it be legal? What right do you have to say to | AWS "you have to host my website?" | | I am a free speech absolutist but that doesn't mean you have | a right to force others to endorse, host, or amplify your | speech. Just that you shouldn't go to jail for it. | neilwilson wrote: | That's fine when there are alternatives. The fact that | Parler isn't back online shows that there is an oligopoly | in place. The point of the first amendment in the first | place was to stop those with overwhelming political power | preventing those they didn't like from speaking. | | What this entire episode has shown is that capitalism's | ability to offer alternatives is being stymied by network | effects. In the USA that used to bring out the Anti-Trust | big stick. | | Parler can be shut down when it has been shown to have | breached legislation passed by the country and has been | found guilty of that in a court of law after due process. | | It's not just free speech that is at issue here. It is | innocent until proven guilty and due process. All of which | are Human Rights issues. Or at least used to be. | pc86 wrote: | AWS has alternatives in 1) Azure; 2) GCP; 3) Any number | of smaller VPS providers; 4) self-hosted infrastructure; | 5) co-location, which sometimes (often?) has different | requirements compared to virtualization re: content. | | > _The fact that Parler isn 't back online shows that | there is an oligopoly in place._ | | It shows that they have mediocre-at-best technical talent | in place, which isn't all that surprising given the | content and target market. | | > _Parler can be shut down when it has been shown to have | breached legislation passed by the country and has been | found guilty of that in a court of law after due | process._ | | This may be what you want, but it's not reality so I | wouldn't frame it as a definitive fact like this. | | > _It 's not just free speech that is at issue here._ | | It's not a free speech issue at all. Free speech means | you can't be jailed or persecuted _by the government_ for | your speech. | | > _It is innocent until proven guilty and due process._ | | You're conflating a misunderstanding of Constitutional | rights with criminal law. Due process is 100% irrelevant. | qez wrote: | > AWS has alternatives | | Yes, but we are seeing collusion | | > It's not a free speech issue at all | | Yes, it is. | | > Free speech means you can't be jailed or persecuted by | the government for your speech. | | This is incorrect. You are confusing free speech with the | 1st amendment. | | The first amendment is the law that says the government | cannot suppress your free speech. Free speech is not | synonymous with that. | | > Due process is 100% irrelevant | | It is relevant to the extent that tech companies are | operating as quasi governmental entities. | Closi wrote: | > It's not just free speech that is at issue here. It is | innocent until proven guilty and due process. All of | which are Human Rights issues. Or at least used to be. | | Due process is inefficient and slow compared to letting | unelected mega-corps determine what other businesses can | exist and what speech can and can't be heard. | | Imagine how awful a system with a 'burden-of-proof' and | 'oversight' would be compared to just trusting the | invisible hand of the market and profit motives determine | the optimum course of action! Adam Smith proved that it | would all work out fine anyway - there was a graph with | some curves that proved it I think. | | Now if only we had a way to merge all these mega- | companies into one, bigger super-mega-corp. Imagine how | much better that would be! Hopefully over time with | market consolidation we can achieve anything. | leshow wrote: | I think the argument is that the fact these services | represent a monopoly that means they shouldn't have | absolute power on who gets to use their platform. | pc86 wrote: | The world is better without Parler, and it will be better if | the most vicious from that platform have trouble finding | megaphones for their atrocious speech. | | _Buuuuuut_ I hope the larger community takes this as a | cautionary tale about being completely beholden to single | entities - whether that 's AWS, or Facebook, or even larger | entities such as "Silicon Valley" that are grouped by ideology | - that you may agree with today, but not tomorrow. | [deleted] | jonathankoren wrote: | Well the lesson here is that you shouldn't build your castles | on other people's land. None of this is new. Sex sites have | had this problem for decades. Cannabis companies can't use | popular payment providers. If there's really a lucrative | market on AWS for Extremists, then the market will provide. | Closi wrote: | > Buuuuuut I hope the larger community takes this as a | cautionary tale about being completely beholden to single | entities | | Great, now what's that technology that lets my domain be | split between two entities again so I can't get deplatformed? | maxehmookau wrote: | Buy two domains? Host your own DNS server. Use Tor. | | There's plenty of ways to get around supposed censorship, | rightly or wrongly. | | You don't need AWS. | Closi wrote: | Ok, so the barrier to entry to building a business is now | that I need to get all my customers to be aware of two | domains, get all my customers to use Tor and to host my | own DNS (presumably in a makeshift datacenter in my | bedroom?). | | Great, thanks. | maxehmookau wrote: | Yeah, if what you're doing means that no private business | wants to do business with you then the bar to doing what | you're doing is higher. Fine by me. | valvar wrote: | Just remember to not complain if eventually the tables are | turned and your preferred political team is getting this | treatment. | maxehmookau wrote: | I absolutely will complain. As parler's members are doing | now. | | Nobody is saying they have no right to speech. AWS is just | saying they don't have the right to speech on their turf. | filleduchaos wrote: | People on the left (and right) have been booted off platforms | for years, so I don't know about "eventually". | valvar wrote: | The systematic suppression through denial of critical | infrastructure is pretty novel, though. | filleduchaos wrote: | Is it? I don't think so. | | On the contrary, people have generally been smart enough | to not do business with companies that won't want to do | business with them (for example, nobody is really sure | where the various [\d]chans are hosted, and Pornhub self- | hosts). There are any number of actually competent people | on the left, the right and orthogonal to politics that | aren't visibly getting denied "critical infrastructure" | because they simply knew better than to use it in the | first place; what we are really witnessing is rather | entitled people realising they're not guaranteed a ready- | made popular platform (whether for an individual's speech | or for an app's deployment). The lack of guarantee of a | platform itself is far from news. | watwut wrote: | The fact is, right wing is present on Twitter, Facebook, | reddit just fine. | | What is not present are their radical wings, which were | kicked away just like leftist violent radicals. | Difference is that at least so far, mainstream left is ok | with those being kicked. | [deleted] | AaronM wrote: | Honest Question. At what point do service providers like AWS | become utilities? Should they? | jredwards wrote: | ISPs, plausibly. But that's because physical infrastructure is | such an important component. It's the same reason you generally | only have a single choice for an ISP. THAT's the problem there, | and that's why there's a good argument for ISPs to be | utilities, and why net neutrality is so important. | | Hosting and domain registration are commoditized services. If | one doesn't want to do business with you (or vice versa) there | are thousands of other options. | chasing wrote: | There's an interesting debate to be had about all of this, but | this Glenn Greenwald article ain't it. | dang wrote: | Threads are currently paginated for performance reasons (yes | we're working on it) so you need to click More at the bottom of | the thread to get to the rest of the comments--or like this: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25747659&p=2 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25747659&p=3 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25747659&p=4 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25747659&p=5 | kemitchell wrote: | Does AWS monopolize cloud services? | | The complaint Parler filed in its lawsuit against AWS cites 30% | market share. It also mentions they've been unable to find | another hosting company, though it doesn't go into why. The | antitrust claim wasn't that AWS cut them off. That was the | _breach of contract_ claim. The antitrust claim was based on | allegations that AWS and Twitter just did a multi-year cloud | deal, and conspired to shut Parler down. Section 1 | anticompetitive conduct claim. IIRC, the relevant market was | microblogging, not cloud infra. | | The Nadler Committee report Glenn cites puts AWS at 24% of US | spend and "close to half" of global spend on cloud services. US | courts don't typically find "market power" below 50% in the | relevant market. The concept of abusing "dominant position", | mentioned over and over in the report, comes from European | competition law, not US antitrust law. | | Anecdotally, I use cloud services and I don't use AWS at all | anymore. As an attorney who advises on terms of service for cloud | services, I'd also expect every major cloud platform has broad | "acceptable use" or similar terms that let them refuse or | terminate customers that cause more problems---law enforcement | requests, law suits, marketing crises---than they're worth. | | A number of my cloud clients rack their own iron. Others | intentionally seek out providers and services with permissive or | aligned activist reputations. Those services often cost more, | both because they're smaller and because they deal with more | warrants, lawsuits, DMCA takedowns, &c. &c. &c. I personally | prefer to patronize smaller, upstart providers. Which is only | possible if you don't bite the hooks---k8s, vendor-specific APIs, | and so on. | franklampard wrote: | eeewwww | romellem wrote: | There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. | | Read the letter [AWS sent them][1]. This isn't AWS punishing a | corporation for having different political views, this is AWS not | taking on the risk that their infra contributes to violent acts. | | [1]: | https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p... | hnburnsy wrote: | I read it and Amazon said they found 98 posts across serval | weeks that were related to violence and the included screen | shots showed very little engagement with those posts. I read | that Parler had 2.3 million DAU in December. Feels like weak | sauce from Amazon, but I do get their objection to the CEOs | moderation comment. | monocasa wrote: | They gave 98 examples, and Parlor refused to moderate those | examples even when they were specifically pointed out by | Amazon. | | It's not that they could only find those examples. | | And among those examples were specific calls to bomb AWS data | centers. | hnburnsy wrote: | Parler said in its lawsuit they did address everything | Amazon raised. My point was the small number against the | large user base. BTW, that bomb post had 0,0,0 which I | assume is retweeets, up votes, and down votes. Amazon | looked over several weeks and that was the best they could | find? | monocasa wrote: | It's not that Amazon was able to find these comments, | it's that they had looked for examples, given those | examples to Parler, and even that low barrier for | moderation wasn't reached after a normal amount of time. | As in 'here's specific examples of what you agree clearly | need moderation, and are calling for terrorist attacks on | our (Amazon)'s infratstructure, you (Parler) still | haven't taken down days later'. | | > 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. | | They sent the examples well before they sent the final | letter, gave Parler plenty of time, and Parler refused to | even moderate under those extremely generous | circumstances. | zefool wrote: | I understand parent to say that Parler claims they _did_ | moderate in all those cases. | hnburnsy wrote: | Yup, in its lawsuit Parler said..."AWS knew its | allegations contained in the letter it leaked to the | press that Parler was not able to find and remove content | that encouraged violence was false because over the last | few days Parler had removed everything AWS had brought to | its attention and more. Yet AWS sought to defame Parler | nonetheless." | | https://www.scribd.com/document/490405156/Parler-sues- | Amazon | monocasa wrote: | They say all of that including using the term defame, but | then don't assert a claim of defamation. | | That's legal code for "we're pulling this out of our | ass". | mindvirus wrote: | I still don't know what to think about this. | | On one hand, Parler was a hate site, filled with conspiracy | theories, radicalization and racism. So it's no loss that it's | gone, and it took far too long to deal with it. And just like I | wouldn't bat an eye for AWS taking down an ISIS recruitment site, | I don't really see any loss here. | | On the other hand, do we really want a handful of unelected | billionaires deciding what is acceptable speech - whether or not | we agree with them? We talk about net neutrality, but shouldn't | we apply the same standard to hosts like AWS? | | Overall it feels like a legislative failure - in an ideal world, | we have laws applied even handedly to deal with this. But in the | absence of political will for these laws, what should be done? I | think we are better off without Parler, but how can we do that in | an even handed and consistent way? | deeeeplearning wrote: | No one cried like this when Stormfront was taken down. These | "Libertarian" Ayn Rand type morons just dressed up the white | supremacy in a hipster tie and beard and suddenly its all about | free speech. | whateveracct wrote: | seriously - Parler just slapped some SV branding on it all, | and now they get to tap into the average HNer's contrarianism | to garner their support. | munificent wrote: | I don't think it's inconsistent to simultaneously believe: | | * _In general_ , tech companies should be less powerful and | monopolistic. | | * _In this specific case_ , the tech companies used the power | they have in a way that is overall beneficial to society. | | Trump incited a violent insurrection on the US Capitol. If | Senators and Representatives had not successfully escaped | through tunnels before the rioters got to them, some of them | would be dead. The fact that Trump is still in office after | that shows that the US absolutely does not have a functioning | legislative branch to check Trump's executive power. | | In the absence of that, we need _some_ entity powerful enough | to push back against rising fascism and authoritarianism. I don | 't like that that power apparently has to be a handful of tech | giant companies, but I'll take that (temporarily at least) over | the US becoming a right-wing dictatorship. | codekilla wrote: | This seems fair. | | > the US absolutely does not have a functioning legislative | branch | | I'm more concerned by this than anything else. In effect this | results in calcified government, which can neither regulate | tech companies (or anything) effectively, or serve as a check | on executive power. People need to start moving to Wyoming | and Alaska, yeah the weather sucks.....but we need to | redefine 'civic duty'. | nappy-doo wrote: | It's like a newspaper, with editors deciding which letters to | the editor to publish or not. Tech companies are really media | companies, it's just that we don't consume dead trees anymore. | dboreham wrote: | As opposed to billionaires like Rupert Murdoch? | Moodles wrote: | > On one hand, Parler was a hate site, filled with conspiracy | theories, radicalization and racism. | | This is a question in good faith. Can you provide any evidence | at all that Parler had more "hate" than Twitter, etc.? | da_big_ghey wrote: | It's hard to quantify, but I can provide an example of a | specific post that likely wouldn't have stayed up on twitter: | | "Everyone said Pence sold out!!! Time to enter the capitol. | Go patriots. Echo and enter the building dont let them vote. | Put pressure. We are riding in!!! Echo big" | | 66 comments, 301 echoes (i.e. retweets), 375 upvotes (i.e. | likes) | | There's a torrent of Parler posts that is being analyzed, so | there may be better conclusions published soon: | https://parler-archive.deadops.de/parler_2020-01-06_posts- | pa... | | That said, I still don't support taking down a site because | there's no moderation. These people won't go away; I wonder | if decentralized/p2p technologies will see more adoption by | the radical right for this reason. | bun_at_work wrote: | > I wonder if decentralized/p2p technologies will see more | adoption by the radical right for this reason. | | It seems as though there is in inverse relationship between | ease of use and centralization (obviously). As | communication becomes decentralized, the ability to accrue | a large audience becomes more difficult. This supports the | rise of ideas that can gain widespread support on their | merit, as opposed to gaining widespread support via having | a mass audience to start with. | | To illustrate: on one side, we have a centralized extreme: | Twitter (or Reddit, or Facebook). On the other side we have | a decentralized extreme: spoken word. Which is easier to | radicalize a country with? | | If extremists move to decentralized or p2p alternatives to | social media, they will shrink in the long run, letting the | fringe ideas remain on the fringe. | | If all social media went the way of decentralization, we | would see far less extremism in general, simply because | most people wouldn't go looking for it and it's pretty hard | to spread extremist ideas in a one-on-one conversation. | MrMan wrote: | Yes the big problem is mom and pop becoming infected with | this hate so now what was radical a couple if years ago | is now literally mainstream. | kofejnik wrote: | This is still on Twitter: | | "On September 17, 2020 we will lay siege to The @WhiteHouse | for exactly fifty days. | | We need your wisdom and expertise to pull off a radically | democratic toneshift in our politics. | | Are you ready for #revolution? | | This is the #WhiteHouseSiege" | | https://twitter.com/adbusters/status/1288193793267625984 | Moodles wrote: | Right. So a somewhat rough analysis would be: sample a | range of "average" tweets on both platform and somehow | aggregate an average "hate" value. | | What I'm getting at is, I understand Parler is generally a | right-leaning platform, and therefore the types of "hate" | will be right-leaning. Twitter is a generally left-leaning | platform, so I would expect their type of hate to be | generally left-leaning. So I think a tweet about storming | the capitol isn't good evidence that Twitter is better. | Because, for exmaple, perhaps a violent Antifa tweet would | be left alone on Twitter but moderated in Parler. Perhaps | some ML bot can quantity sentiment of tweets. | evgen wrote: | Others have mentioned it, but there is a multi-TB dump of | parler posts and videos out there if you feel like digging. | In addition to the widely recognized fact that hate speech | and outright calls to political violence were tolerated on | Parler we have evidence that what little moderation did exist | on the platform was dedicated towards suppressing dissenting | opinions and reinforcing the Trump viewpoint. As an absolute | number Parler probably had fewer objectionable messages, but | they were a much larger percentage of the whole and unlike on | Twitter there was no moderation that was preventing them from | being distributed. | reddog wrote: | Good question. Normally I would try to figure this out for | myself by logging on to Parler and taking a look. But Tim | Cook, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai, Jack Dorsey and Mark | Zuckerberg have decided that I can't be trusted to do that -- | I could become a Nazi or Qanon nutter and try to violently | overthrow the government. | | I really dodged a bullet. Thank God for our tech overlords | and their new Ministry of Truth. I can now sleep easy knowing | that they are busy scouring the rest of the internet and it's | marketplace of ideas for more doubleplusbadthink from which | to shield me. | BitwiseFool wrote: | I believe that once any social media site gets big enough | people with radical and violent views show up. It's | unavoidable. Some of them are just trolls and troublemakers. | The real question becomes how they deal with those people. | Parler already had a moderation policy in-place, but to be | fair they are a growing company that experienced an absolute | surge of new users. Twitter is a fully mature company with | much more moderation in place. Even still, you can find a ton | of calls for violence on Twitter by blue checkmark people and | nothing ever seems to come from that. | | Just because radical things are posted on your website | doesn't mean all the discourse on the site is bad and your | site should be deplatformed. We already apply that standard | to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and others. | | As a side note, I've heard that the people who actually | stormed the Capitol Building (not just holding signs outside | of it, which is perfectly fine) used Facebook to coordinate | and not Parler. | CarelessExpert wrote: | > Parler already had a moderation policy in-place | | A policy that was FAR more relaxed than any of their | competitors, which was by design and part of their | marketing pitch: come here to say those things you're not | allowed to say elsewhere. | | Parler's position is: unless the language is _strictly_ | illegal according to the letter of the law that 's designed | limit _government_ censorship of speech, then it 's | allowed. | | By that definition, if I call for someone's death, unless I | have the means and the opportunity and mention a specific | time, then it doesn't count and the post stays up. | | Clearly Amazon, Google, and Apple have policies that are | more strict than US law. And that makes sense: US law is | shaped by the constitution, which is meant to restrict the | _government 's_ ability to limit speech. And we should | absolutely want the rules regarding government censorship | to be as narrow as possible. | | But private services are free to operate by different | rules. | | For example, if I walk into a McDonalds and start swearing | at all the customers, I'll get kicked out even if I'm not | breaking the letter of the law. | | So, did they have a moderation policy? Yes, technically. | But did that policy allow extremist and violent language to | persist on their site at a level above and beyond what's | seen on any competing platform outside of, say, 8chan? | Absolutely. | | > As a side note, I've heard that the people who actually | stormed the Capitol Building (not just holding signs | outside of it, which is perfectly fine) used Facebook to | coordinate and not Parler. | | And Facebook would pull that content down if they found it. | | Parler won't. | | That's what got them pulled from AWS, and the Google and | Apple app stores. | ttt0 wrote: | Facebook for a long time refused to remove holocaust | denial. What do you think about that? | gamblor956 wrote: | Holocaust Denial is not inciting violence? While | distasteful, it's not illegal in the U.S. | | Facebook ultimately started removing Holocaust denial | content because it violated their harassment policy, not | because it was illegal. | CarelessExpert wrote: | > Facebook for a long time refused to remove holocaust | denial. What do you think about that? | | I think it's a non-sequitur. | chmod600 wrote: | "But private services are free to operate by different | rules." | | But that's just it, isn't it? Parler tried to make a new | service that plays by a new set of rules. And they were | crushed, because it turns out that you actually can't | have your own rules unless you are already at the scale | of Apple, AWS, etc. | [deleted] | mrguyorama wrote: | Yes. If I try to run a business selling klan robes, and | word gets out, I might find I no longer have any willing | fabric suppliers. | | That's not an infringement on my rights, that's the free | market at work | chmod600 wrote: | I didn't say it was illegal or an infringement of | Constitutional rights. But it is pretty worrying. | | Before this, the power was somewhat theoretical and used | in tiny marginal cases. Now, it's proven that they can | effectively exercise the power in a major way, and that's | news. | CarelessExpert wrote: | > Now, it's proven that they can effectively exercise the | power in a major way, and that's news. | | Honestly, it's really not. We've seen groups like ISIS | kicked off social media, for example, and no one blinked | an eye. Heck, Milo Yiannopoulos was deplatformed way back | in 2016. | | The thing that's news is that a significant percentage of | a major US political party is now associated with a form | of right wing extremism and wrapped up in a major | conspiracy theory movement whose adherents are willing to | commit violence in an attempt to subvert an election. | CarelessExpert wrote: | > But that's just it, isn't it? Parler tried to make a | new service that plays by a new set of rules. And they | were crushed, because it turns out that you actually | can't have your own rules unless you are already at the | scale of Apple, AWS, etc. | | That's not at all true. If I recall the same thing | happened to 8chan/8kun. Yet somehow they live on. If | Parler has a market, they'll find a way. | | That said, it sucks but, well, that's capitalism for ya. | | What else would you suggest? Regulating these various | companies such that the government gets to decide who can | use their services? | | Because if so, a) that would require new laws, b) it'd | probably fall afoul of the first amendment, and c) it | doesn't seem to align well with free market conservative | ideology, and so should be opposed by the very users of | Parler that are being affected by this. | throwaway19937 wrote: | The following link contains a racial slur in the text of a | screenshot - you probably don't want to open it at work. | | https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/comments/ktwmje/this_is. | .. is a concrete example of speech that would be banned from | Twitter and Facebook. I think it's telling that there are 25k | up votes. | Moodles wrote: | You have provided an exmaple (I assume, I didn't click the | link because I have a productivity blocker which I | obviously need to update for Hacker News, lol) of a bad | thing on one platform, but not another. But ok, are there | vice versa examples? | | What I'm getting at is, I understand Parler is generally a | right-leaning platform, and therefore the types of "hate" | will be right-leaning. Twitter is a generally left-leaning | platform, so I would expect their type of hate to be | generally left-leaning. So I think a tweet about e.g. | storming the Capitol being banned on Twitter but not Parler | isn't good evidence that Twitter is better. Because, for | example, perhaps a violent Antifa tweet would be left alone | on Twitter but censored on Parler. Perhaps some ML bot can | quantity sentiment of tweets. That's the kind of evidence I | would like to see. | JohnBooty wrote: | It perfectly valid for you to dismiss my account as anecdotal | because admittedly that's all it is. | | But man, wow. I joined Parler several months ago and that's | literally all my default feed was -- various flavors of right | wing rage. Not all was violent or racist. Some were verified | celebrities and right wing politicians; those tended to be | rather mild. | | But typing various slurs or words like "shoot" or "hang" into | the search box returned some eye-watering results. | | The difference between it and Twitter was _not_ subtle. | chmod600 wrote: | The relevant question is about Twitter/FB at a similar | development stage. Now, they have all kinds of moderation | algorithms and employees, so it's not really a fair | comparison. | eximius wrote: | 1. Probably. Take a look at some of the Parker dumps before | it was shut down. Calls for death squads weren't couched in | metaphor. 2. Even if not, Twitter, as much as I loathe it, | also has many non-hateful users. Parler was a haven for alt- | right extremism. | dionidium wrote: | Anybody who has ever talked about housing on Twitter or | Facebook knows that pictures of Mao and guillotines | frequently accompany calls to kill all landlords (just to | take one example I'm familiar with). | | Are these legitimate calls to violence? Or just jokey | memes? Is there a difference? Who decides that? In what | sense do these posts not demonstrate support for political | violence? | xref wrote: | Replace "landlords" with "black people" and ask the same | questions. Report the posts. | [deleted] | [deleted] | dageshi wrote: | In the case of Parler, it turned out that yes, the calls | to violence were real and not jokes. | | You might say all these platforms previously gave Parler | the benefit of the doubt and then were faced with | incontrovertible evidence that Parler was facilitating | political violence. | CarelessExpert wrote: | > This is a question in good faith. Can you provide any | evidence at all that Parler had more "hate" than Twitter, | etc.? | | The problem isn't just that they had more, though logic would | suggest they did; after all, their user base are refugees | from other platforms that pushed them out for extremist | language, advocating for violence, conspiracy theories, etc. | | It's that Parler refused to remove it. | | So even if the rate of introduction of this content was the | same on Parler (which I don't buy for a second, see argument | above), the total concentration and visibility of it is | higher because it's not taken down. | idunno246 wrote: | i imagine twitter has more in absolute terms, just due to | the relative size of the two sites. I think the major | difference is worse than just refusing to remove it, Parler | advertised itself as the place where you can say things | that most sites would moderate away, it actively encouraged | it, so as a percentage it was much larger | [deleted] | Applejinx wrote: | This is another question in good faith. Can you provide any | evidence at all that you're not knowingly asking that as a | political/debating tactic to suggest your proposition is | reasonable, knowing full well that the purpose of Parler's | existence is (was) to facilitate communication that larger | social networks stifle, and categorize as hate speech? | | I think it's very interesting that you lead off citing good | faith in a situation where, in my experience, you're about to | demonstrate literal bad faith. It's like you wish to take off | the table the interpretation that you are intentionally lying | for the sake of argument. | CrazyPyroLinux wrote: | Tu quoque; it seems uncharitable of you to respond to a | "question in good faith" by immediately accusing them of | bad faith and of lying, and asking them to prove their | innocence by proving a negative. | | I think the parent raises a very legitimate question of | what defines a "hate site, filled with conspiracy theories, | radicalization and racism." I've never had a Twitter | account myself, but some of the publicly-available content | I've seen there there certainly fits that description. | Conversely, I did briefly have a Parler account, and what I | saw in my particular bubble did not fit that description at | all - It was crypto enthusiasts, entrepreneurs, and | comedians. I'm not trying to imply that my anecdote is data | or that Parler is some bastion of positivity, but the way | your premise is stated only requires a single | counterexample: _some_ "hate speech" exists on Twitter, and | not _everything_ on Parler is. | | You say, "the purpose of Parler's existence is (was) to | facilitate communication that larger social networks | stifle." To me that sounds like the old adage that "the | Internet treats censorship as damage, and routes around | it." At least five years ago that was largely seen as a | feature rather than a bug. But recently the tide of popular | opinion seems to have shifted in general favor of | censorship. Undeniably there are some bad ideas out there, | but I worry that the "cure" of censorship is a slippery | slope that could very quickly become worse than the | disease. | cheeseomlit wrote: | God forbid anyone wants to discuss anything "that the | larger social networks stifle, and categorize as hate | speech". Anyone that expresses such a desire is guilty of | hate speech and must be silenced. | agloeregrets wrote: | > that larger social networks stifle, and categorize as | hate speech? | | Let me fix that: | | > that multiple countries and international organizations | categorize as hate speech? | | A casual reminder that when most think these open air rules | are intended to stifle conversation it is generally for | very clear legal and moral reasons. If you believe this is | used by them to control people then you should also believe | that a replacement should view this speech as antithetical | to the existence of the free speech social company. | | It's one thing to ban talk about the platform you are | talking on. | | It's not the same thing to ban intolerant behavior. | | It all leads back to this: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance | sickofparadox wrote: | I've seen this argument so many times, and it always | strikes me that those who cite it often have either not | read, or completely miss the point Karl Popper was trying | to make. He goes so far as to even say: "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 | unwise." I am quite sick of the usage of the paradox of | tolerance being used as an attack against a free, | pluralistic society. | agloeregrets wrote: | Clearly you didn't quote the rest of that exact line for | a reason. | | He goes on to explain what situation would call for use | of suppression, for example, the use of violence or | rejecting reason or logic by the intolerant (Which, | obviously both are what happened in January 6th and in | this narrative) ;) | | The ban isn't on conservative viewpoints, it is on | intolerant speech that has no want to make a logical | discussion and resorts to violence. Trust me, I'm using | it correctly. | kofejnik wrote: | Banning intolerant behavior means that whoever screams | 'Intolerance!' the loudest wins | agloeregrets wrote: | The funny thing about intolerance is that it's pretty | easy to define: | | Unwillingness to accept(or tolerate) views, beliefs, or | behavior that differ from one's own. | | When we talk about intolerant behavior we are talking | about actions and statements that are intended to demean | others by design (and praise the inverse), this is pretty | easy to define. Saying that a person's skin color or | gender makes them lesser or to be despised is clearly | intolerant, the person in context is clearly unable to | change this as it is how they are. Whats funny about this | is that the US Bill of rights is a statement on | intolerance by design. It's meant to both give rights but | also set tone. | [deleted] | Moodles wrote: | > This is another question in good faith. Can you provide | any evidence at all that you're not knowingly asking that | as a political/debating tactic to suggest your proposition | is reasonable, knowing full well that the purpose of | Parler's existence is (was) to facilitate communication | that larger social networks stifle, and categorize as hate | speech? | | Maybe something is lost over text, but I genuinely prefaced | my question because I know it's a delicate political topic | for people. But your response is just childish. I literally | barely know anything about Parler. Also, how is asking for | evidence so triggering? That should be the cornerstone of | any these types of discussions. | | But to answer your question: No, I can't prove to you what | I'm thinking. Nobody ever can. So perhaps you should just | take my question on face value and stop assuming malicious | intent. | neither_color wrote: | So the answer is no. In that case let me answer for you | while you have your moment of outrage. A hacker named | donk_enby made a back up that will soon be available for | researchers to answer just this question. We will be able | to look at this data set and see if Parler incites more | violence both in absolute numbers and in percentage terms. | My best guess is that twitter/has has more calls to | violence in absolute terms because it is several times | larger and has been around for several years. They have a | large moderation team but they're not as responsive in all | languages. In percentage terms, that can't be answered yet | without looking at the data. https://www.usatoday.com/story | /tech/news/2021/01/11/parler-h... | [deleted] | grumple wrote: | How is this different from any other moderation? | | Nobody would bat an eye if you were banned from HN or reddit | for hate speech. Why should a platform be any different? If my | customer started using my services to spread Nazism, I'd ban | them too. Let's say I was a baker - would it be reasonable that | I be compelled to draw swastikas on cakes? Obviously, that's | absurd! It is equally absurd to demand that other businesses | provide platforms for behavior they don't condone. | | Freedom of speech is freedom from oppression by government. | Parler isn't being oppressed, they just aren't being given a | platform to oppress others by private citizens and | corporations. Well, not anymore, although lots of corps made | some money from them while they could. | tannedNerd wrote: | I think the issue is that the town square that the first is | supposed to protect doesn't exist anymore. The town square is | now Twitter, and valid or not, the de-platforming of a lot of | conservatives is going to have a lasting backlash against | tech companies. | | I wouldn't be surprised to see GOP resurgence in 2022, along | with another very real attack on section 230. | dleslie wrote: | With the town square metaphor: while you cannot be | prosecuted for what you say in the square, you can be | persecuted by your civilian peers; folks may stop speaking | to you, or begin informing others of your nature. | | Twitter et al booting persons from their services is the | neighbour slamming their door in your face, or the baker | refusing to do business with you. | | The town square is tcp/ip, not the services on top of it. | mullen wrote: | Twitter is not the town square since real town squares are | owned by the State. They are public spaces for all and, let | me point out, that you usually need a permit to speak or | have a rally. So they are not that free as everyone thinks. | | Twitter is more like a mall owned by a large corporation | and while there is some trouble there, they will kick | people off the property that are too offensive. If you try | to start an insurrection at a mall, you will be kicked out | and banned. | | It is in Twitters and mall owners best interest to start | insurrections on their properties because there will be | ramifications for allowing that to happen, that is not good | for business. | nullc wrote: | Because part of the justification for sloppy and capricious | banning without anything resembling due process is that | you're free to go elsewhere. | | This justification doesn't work if elsewhere is shut down | too. | jquery wrote: | I've been using Parler since June to discuss fairly mainstream | views and talk about day to day life on a Twitter alternative. | This week that option was taken away from me, without due | process for me or the company in question. The alleged | violations were nothing I hadn't seen on Twitter, except | Twitter regularly hosts even worse content, but I guess it has | enough important people using it to crush alternatives on shaky | claims and spotty evidence. | artificialLimbs wrote: | Freedom of speech doesn't aim to protect speech that is 'nice'. | evgen wrote: | Freedom of speech aims to protect speech from government | suppression, not from societal norms or the consequences of | that speech in the marketplace. | zajio1am wrote: | The pivotal book about freedom of speech, 'On Liberty' from | J. S. Mill, is predominantly interested in freedom from | societal suppression, not just government suppression: | "Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at | first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as | operating through the acts of the public authorities. But | reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself | the tyrant - society collectively, over the separate | individuals who compose it - its means of tyrannising are | not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of | its political functionaries. 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. | Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the | magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also | against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; | against the tendency of society to impose, by other means | than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules | of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the | development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of | any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel | all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its | own." | evgen wrote: | Mill may be the most passionate philosopher to defend | this maximalist interpretation of free speech, but he is | hopelessly out of date. Mill was a proponent of the | 'marketplace of ideas' delusion that has been shown over | the past few decades to be an illusion; Mill seems to | think that knowledge, and only knowledge, emerges from | arguments between dedicated opponents. These quaint bon | mots from twee English gentlemen of the Victorian period | are about as relevant to modern life as are their | opinions about medicine, hygiene, education, and the role | of women. Interesting as a historical artifact but not | for much more. | hertzrat wrote: | You are saying that social censure is no longer something | that humans need to worry about. That the concept of is a | free exchange of ideas is antiquated, and that the | principle of letting people learn from their debates was | only valid a hundred years ago? All because of some tech | algorithms? | gamblor956 wrote: | This book had no bearing on the First Amendment's | conception of freedom of speech, seeing as how it was | written several decades after the formation of the U.S. | | This book may have been pivotal to British | utilitarianists, but it didn't have much, if any, impact | on the U.S. | zajio1am wrote: | The thread is not about First Amendment, as a specific | legal protection, but about general societal principle of | freedom of speech. | gamblor956 wrote: | Which has its foundations in the First Amendment... | | Before then, "free speech" as a concept did not exist. | (The closest was the freedom of religious practice, which | is not the same thing.) | hertzrat wrote: | No, it does not. Free speech is a principle of political | philosophy. The United States founders did not invent it | throwaway829 wrote: | As an ex-Scientologist it saddens me that I have to tell | HN readers this, but please read "On liberty" which | explains why censorship is a flawed approach. | flyingfences wrote: | > Before then, "free speech" as a concept did not exist. | | Now _that_ is a heavy claim to be making. Do you have | anything to back it up? | gamblor956 wrote: | History itself? | | Before the U.S., nobody even thought free speech was | possible. England was the closest, but their version of | free speech was still subject to government censorship. | | It was the writings of the Founding Fathers, and the Bill | of Rights in particular, that established the doctrine | that is today known as "freedom of speech." | jumby wrote: | I saw a great analogy on Twitter: Imagine Twitter as the | anti-homosexual cake shop and Q-Anon/Trump/Radical Right as | the couple who want a cake for their gay wedding. | Steltek wrote: | Are people born "QAnon"? If you consider yourself | moderate, are you Bi? Am I cis-liberal? | | I think this analogy needs a lot of work. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Tolerance for the intolerant is a virtue? There need to | be boundaries on destructive behavior. One scenario isn't | substantively harming society. | jumby wrote: | Not at all. The hypocrisy is that the same folks who | cheered the Supreme Court cake ruling are now wanting AWS | to bake them a cake. | joshuamorton wrote: | Why is this a great analogy? | | Specifically, how does banning people for their actions | work well as an analogy for banning someone for who they | are (and you _must_ take that for granted, because that | 's the legal frameworks opinions on the matter)? | | That's also an even worse example because the supreme | court found in favor of the cake shop. | evgen wrote: | I think it is the reverse. If a baker can't be forced to | bake a rainbow cake (for members of a protected class) | then AWS most certainly cannot be forced to provide | service to people espousing violent political action (not | a protected class.) | dionian wrote: | > Parler was a hate site, | | What evidence do you base this on? Do you have evidence | quantifying how Parler users are more hateful than Twitter or | Facebook? | newacct583 wrote: | > On the other hand, do we really want a handful of unelected | billionaires deciding what is acceptable speech | | Yes? I mean, look where you're posting. HN is very heavily | moderated. Check out dang's post history for all the work he | has to do. HN has very clear ideas on what speech is | "acceptable" and what is not, and they are significantly more | complicated than the "don't incite political violence" standard | being enforced against Parler. | | I mean, really. Parler failed to clear even the simplest, most | straightforward, most consensus- and norm-driven ideals of how | public discourse is supposed to work. And they didn't really | get "moderated" any harder than any of us would have. | | Yet we still have to rally behind them as the standard-bearer | for megacorp censorship? Really? Can't we wait for at least a | tiny bit of evidence that they're misusing their power first? | f430 wrote: | > Parler was a hate site | | Have you seen Twitter, Reddit? It's filled with hate, | conspiracy, radicalization and racism. | | It's astounding how quickly people fall back to their dfault | political leanings and stop being objective. | | If they can do this to Parler citing politically motivated | excuse to shut them down, what stops your company from getting | booted off the internet because some of your users posted "lets | blow stuff up"? | | This sets a dangerous precedent going forward and it affects | all of us regardless of your political spectrum. I get that AWS | is an independent commercial entity that has its own terms but | do you realize the problem of trusting billionaires and their | monopoly to always do the right thing? | | Tomorrow, the currents might change, and it could be you too. | First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-- | because I was not a socialist.... | zmmmmm wrote: | That's where I think people are missing the point to some | extent. I'm taking on good faith what was reported by these | companies - but their statements claimed they observed | _actual_ concrete planning to organise _actual_ violence and | further insurrection. Stopping speech is one thing. But the | claim is it is not the speech they are worried about, it is | the violence. The infrastructure is being used for more than | speech. Removing the infrastructure is being done to impede | those larger effects. | | Does it change the flavor if I rewrite the phrase as | First they came for the murderers and I did not speak out ... | ? | f430 wrote: | Facebook and Twitter has been used to organize violence and | overthrow governments too. | zmmmmm wrote: | I don't think an argument of consistency really works | here. Sure that has happened. And possibly in those | countries they suffered consequences for their part in | that. That does not mean they should not apply those | principles in the US, in this instance. All these things | are context specific, driven by judgement taking into | account the whole circumstances. | f430 wrote: | It kills the argument that Parler is exclusively used for | organizing violence although the insurrection part is | where they will have a lot of trouble with specifically | because they chose the worst possible place. | Animats wrote: | Parler.com is down too. It's been removed from DNS. DNS server | is EPIK.COM ("Resilient domains"). Their DNS server is | returning 0.0.0.0, instead of NXDOMAIN. The domain is still on | Verisign, and they don't seem to be doing anything to it. | trianglem wrote: | Epik.com the refuge of far-right, neo-nazi sites led by Rob | Monster epik? Of course it is. | Covzire wrote: | Parler wasn't a hate site. You're parroting far left | propaganda. | throwaway19937 wrote: | Here's a comment with a racial slur on Parler with 25k | upvotes. | | https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/comments/ktwmje/this_is. | .. | | IMO it's reasonable to consider it a hate site or a site | which embraces racist behavior. | vladTheInhaler wrote: | Comments that are acceptable on Parler: "Personally I'm | hoping for war I'd love to crush leftist skulls and rip out | their spines. Rally your soy boys. Your Pantifa and BLM | wannabe gangsters. I'll bath myself is leftist blood and | drink from your skullcaps." | | Comments that are unacceptable on Parler: Pretending to be a | cow owned by Devin Nunes | charly187 wrote: | What makes you think the former is acceptable on Parler? | Are there documented cases where something like that was | reported and Parler refused to take it down? | vladTheInhaler wrote: | You can go ahead and look at any of the 98 examples cited | in Amazon's letter to Parler. | amanaplanacanal wrote: | If you don't moderate that stuff you are going to be tarred | by association. I don't know how you could avoid that. | dogman144 wrote: | > On the other hand, do we really want a handful of unelected | billionaires deciding what is acceptable speech - whether or | not we agree with them? We talk about net neutrality, but | shouldn't we apply the same standard to hosts like AWS? | | Putting aside questions around whether or not a media filter | has always existed in some form... | | You're using social media hosted on EC2 instances that can be | terminated vs instead of your local newspaper and other | similar, less directly filtered options. That's the trade off. | I don't really see anything unusual about it - a newspaper | could fire a writer (or even hire writers that reflect a | certain tone), and nobody batted an eye. | liberal_098 wrote: | _IF_ we proceed from the hypothesis that X is "a hate site, | filled with conspiracy theories, radicalization and racism" | | _AND_ we want to ban the whole platform X, | | _THEN_ it would be logical to ban also all the layers down the | technological stack: AWS, Google Play Store, Telecoms that | transported the traffic etc. | | Indeed, X platform has approximately the same responsibility as | other platform layers and hence they all should be punished. | | Another idea is to punish them proportionally to their | _ability_ to check the content published on the platform so | that telecoms probably will not be punished at all because they | are not able to read encrypted traffic. | darkarmani wrote: | Ban the least layers needed to achieve the goal. The layers | closer to the violent speech get the most responsibility. | | If the next layer refuses to ban the previous layer, then | yes: keep going after the next layer in the stack. | dnh44 wrote: | When it comes to issues like these I tend to agree with the | sentiment of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend | to the death your right to say it." | | But this isn't about criminalising speech promoting conspiracy | theories, radicalisation, and racism. It's about private | entities withdrawing the infrastructure of speech, which | obviously gets a lot more complicated to reason about and | legislate. | | I'm mostly okay with Apple and Google removing the app from | their stores. I'm slightly less okay with Amazon withdrawing | their services. But if Parler ends up reborn on a server | running out of someones house or business I would be very much | against their utility providers cutting off access. | | So I guess what I'm saying is that I'm with you and don't quite | know what to think about this either. | | However I do worry that if we're not careful as a society | someone posting on HN (or maybe a government approved Facebook | group) will eventually say: | | >The internet was a hate site, filled with conspiracy theories, | radicalization and racism. So it's no loss that it's gone, and | it took far too long to deal with it. | glogla wrote: | > When it comes to issues like these I tend to agree with the | sentiment of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend | to the death your right to say it." | | That approach, combined with filter bubbles and AI | recommendations driving engagement/addiction, gave us rise of | things like Antivax movement, Trump, QAnon and now an | attempted coup in the US. | | We should probably think hard before we consider it the only | possible approach. | | At the same time, saying "some speech actually isn't ok" | doesn't mean that unaccountable monopolies of corporate | overlords that wield more power than some nation states are | ok. Both things can be true at the same time. | dnh44 wrote: | The root cause of the things you describe aren't free | speech or filter bubbles. | | It's a lack of confidence and trust in our governments and | corporations. The fact that those same governments and | corporations own our media makes it even worse. | | I think criminalising unpopular speech will make the | symptoms of this problem worse rather than better. | glogla wrote: | "Criminalizing unpopular speech" is a peculiar way to | answer to "some speech might be harmful". | | Is sharing someone else's private information, publishing | outright lies about safety of vaccines, or claiming some | ethnicities or nationalities are subhuman and should be | murdered right now "unpopular speech"? | | I mean, I sure as hell hope it is unpopular! | | But it is much more than just "unpopular speech". Framing | it like "criminalizing unpopular speech" makes it sound | like someone wants to criminalize saying "I think the | Twilight series were genuinely good movies." but we're | talking about people saying "All those <insert slur> | should be killed." | | And yet, you are right that in some cases this happens - | for example when some US states decided to solve problem | of people complaining about animal cruelty by making | filming on farms illegal. That's a complete bullshit and | it is harmful to the society. | | But people who incite violence and Antivaxxers who | actively hurt people by spreading diseases? I don't think | so. | esyir wrote: | Let's put it a different way then. Imagine right wing | dystopia where everything you value is considered bad. Now | you try to discuss Gay rights. You can't talk about it on | Facebook, nor on any platform, as they ban you instantly. You | build your own platform. Aws/gcp/azure ban you there too and | kill the whole thing. I'm going to go the next step. Now | credit cards and other payment services refuse services as | well. | | Are you supposed to rebuild the entire tech ecosystem that | the entire world runs on? Fight through every damn moat along | the way? Is this the bar we set here? | | Its easy to talk free speech for popular speech. It's how | people react to unpopular speech that shows their true | colours. | ip26 wrote: | The 1st means you can't be jailed by the government for | discussing gay rights. | | It doesn't mean private individuals have to humor you. It | doesn't even mean they have to listen to you. | zaroth wrote: | There are other laws than the 1st Amendment that come | into play here. | | The 3 biggest technology companies in the world united in | the last two days to shut down an upstart competitor who | was, at the time, literally the #1 app on iPhone and | Android. | | So the issue is primarily one of anti-trust laws. | Monopolies do not get to arbitrarily and selectively | enforce their ToS against competitors; that is an illegal | abuse of market power. | | The tech giants this week seem to have demonstrated that | they do in fact hold monopoly power in the market, and | are willing to use it to crush a potential competitor. | This seems to me to be an unprecedented situation, a | likely anti-trust violation, and potentially to the | extent that it was a coordinated action by these | companies, a violation of RICO statutes. | | I think it is fair to say that Parler, like _every_ | social network, could be used to post hateful messages, | or messages advocating violence. GP stated that Parler | was a "hate site" but I think it's more accurate to say | that Parler was a site that carried some hateful | messages. It was by no means a site formed or designed | specifically to carry hate. | | A corollary that I would raise is a similar standard in | copyright infringement. Sites which are designed | specifically with the intent of committing copyright | infringement are now criminally liable -- it has recently | become a serious felony to make these kinds of sites. | However, site that show a significant non-infringement | purpose are not illegal, even if some infringement takes | place on their platform. You might recall that YouTube | was a site that got its start with rampant copyright | infringement, and to this day has a significant amount of | infringing material on its servers, but it is not | criminally liable, or even civilly liable for that | content due to the fact that the site has a significant | non-infringement purpose. I think that's a fair analogy | with Parler. | | If there's a copyright or public safety issue with a | piece of content posted on a social media platform, the | law should provide for a takedown procedure against the | _content_ , not against the whole platform. The cause of | action should be against the poster, not against the | entire platform. Nuking the entire platform from orbit is | not an appropriate remedy, and in any case should be done | through a court of law, not through the actions of a | monopolistic cartel. | pertymcpert wrote: | > The 3 biggest technology companies in the world united | in the last two days to shut down an upstart competitor | who was, at the time, literally the #1 app on iPhone and | Android. | | Maybe Facebook, but... | | How did Parler compete with Apple? What market were they | competing in? | | How did Parler compete with AWS? Did they share the same | sort of clients? | | How did Parler compete with Google? | ip26 wrote: | _If there's a copyright or public safety issue with a | piece of content posted on a social media platform, the | law should provide for a takedown procedure against the | content, not against the whole platform. The cause of | action should be against the poster, not against the | entire platform._ | | Remember Parler was asked by the tech co's to moderate | such content, and it refused. | | I also don't see how Parler competed with AWS. | darkarmani wrote: | > The tech giants this week seem to have demonstrated | that they do in fact hold monopoly power in the market, | and are willing to use it to crush a potential | competitor. This seems to me to be an unprecedented | situation, a likely anti-trust violation, and potentially | to the extent that it was a coordinated action by these | companies, | | Coordinated? Competitor? Where do you find evidence of | coordination? Why do you think parler is a competitor? | | > it's more accurate to say that Parler was a site that | carried some hateful messages | | Not accurate at all. Why do you think people used parler | instead of twitter. | | > Nuking the entire platform from orbit is not an | appropriate remedy | | When the entire platform resists and refuses to moderate, | nuking from orbit is a fine remedy. Parler was too stupid | to build alternatives into their risk profile. I think | they believed their own hype. | dragonwriter wrote: | > If there's a copyright or public safety issue with a | piece of content posted on a social media platform, the | law should provide for a takedown procedure against the | content, not against the whole platform. | | For many kinds of criminal content posing an acute public | safety hazard, it does, and it's very simple: if you have | knowledge of the existence of the material, you must take | it down or become yourself criminally liable for it, in | addition to anyone who is already criminally liable. (For | copyright, there's the DMCA takedown process, which is | more generous because people don't tend to get killed as | a forseeable consequence of civil copyright violations.) | | Of course, if you are a second level host and don't have | item-by-item control (such as AWS for a site hosted there | by another firm), the only efficient way to acheived that | may be to drop the entire account. | dnh44 wrote: | I'm mostly in agreement with you, and if the choice were | left to me I probably wouldn't have banned Parler from the | app stores or AWS. Although I'd have to reconsider if an | incoming Biden administration would punish me in any | upcoming anti-trust case, as cowardly as that may seem. | | But I also think the rights of the services providers have | to considered as well. Should Nintendo be forced to publish | porn apps in their Switch online store for example? Should | HN be prevented from moderating comments here? Should | thedonald.win be prevented from deleting anti-Trump | comments? No is my answer to those rhetorical questions. | | At the same time I don't think that electricity, water, and | internet service providers should be allowed to cut off | Westboro Baptist Church either. Likewise for their domain | name provider. | | I think things like AWS and payment services are more like | electric and water suppliers then they are like app stores | and web forums. So I suppose that I'm in favour of drawing | a line in a reasonable place, it's just not clear to me yet | exactly where that line should be. | ng12 wrote: | I feel similar. It's a tricky problem. | | What would help is what we should have done a long time | ago: Apple should either allow users to install different | app stores or submit to regulation as a platform. | [deleted] | downrightmike wrote: | It is the same thing when they take down any other hate site: | bye bye haters. Intolerance cannot be allowed to be free | speech. Just like you can't walk into a club and yell fire | without consequences. We have tragic historical events that set | precedence. | skrebbel wrote: | > Intolerance cannot be allowed to be free speech. | | That's just "I'm for free speech unless I disagree with the | speech", right? | | Who decides what's too intolerant? | | We all love our Popper quotes but it's a very hard line to | draw. Nearly any opinion can be explained at being somehow | intolerant if you try hard enough. | millbraebart wrote: | Would this law also apply to LeBron James when he "incites" | black youth by claiming black people "are hunted everyday" by | the police? A fact check would show the statistics don't | support such a claim. It's clearly dangerous speech that needs | to be moderated. Why does the left assume nobody has any agency | over their own actions? | mariodiana wrote: | Parler was not a "hate site." It's a social media platform that | chose to take a reactive rather than proactive approach to | policing illegal behavior, and experienced the growing pains of | an up-and-comer advertising itself as a Twitter alternative | that then had to deal with a flood of Twitter refugees during a | political crisis. | | The overwhelming vast majority of the people on Parler were | simply normal people tired of what they perceived as a double | standard in Twitter's treatment of conservatives as opposed to | liberals, and wished to support a competitor. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Overall it feels like a legislative failure - in an ideal | world, we have laws applied even handedly to deal with this. | | Whether it will be applied even-handedly remains to be seen, | but there is a law to deal with this, and I suspect it's a | factor in why businesses of all kinds are running screaming | from anything connected to the attacks (including other | businesses that fail to themselves cut off any activity with a | nexus to the attack, the attackers, and the apparent planning | for future attacks): 18 USC Sec 2339A, which makes it a federal | crime to knowingly provide any goods or services except | medicine and religious materials connected to any of an | enumerated list of federal criminal offenses collectively | designated "terrorism", punishable by fines and imprisonment | for up to 15 years unless death occurs as a result of the | crime, in which case the imprisonment becomes for any term of | years or life. | acomjean wrote: | There are laws, but as a practical matter they aren't | enforced. | | Individuals are not held responsible for the threats and | illegal speech they make. Look at all the threats made | against people on social media. The fact that there is almost | no accountability means it keeps happening. | | The only repercussions most of the time is that the platform | kicks you off. Part of it is, its their platform and from a | business perspective having you around if you are too toxic | isn't wise. | | It seems like a society problem. Non enforcement and a lot of | people with nothing to loose. | johncessna wrote: | I'll simplify the issue for you. Your tribe won out in this | particular battle but you're worried that may not always be the | case. You should absolutely be worried about that. | mattbee wrote: | > On the other hand, do we really want a handful of unelected | billionaires deciding what is acceptable speech - whether or | not we agree with them? We talk about net neutrality, but | shouldn't we apply the same standard to hosts like AWS? | | No, because you don't need AWS or Twitter or Cloudflare or | _any_ of the name tech companies to run a high-traffic web site | successfully. | MrBuddyCasino wrote: | This is disingenuous. Already credit card companies have | begun to de-platform people. Once Visa and AmEx refuse to do | business with you, you are on increasingly thin ice. If both | Google and Apple refuse to host your app in their App Stores, | what exactly is your recourse? | | Nowadays, the public square, the thing that the constitution | is supposed to protect, which is the difference between | feudalism and democracy, is de-facto (though not de-jure), | owned by monopolistic corporations. They are only accountable | to their shareholders, and they have nearly complete power | over their platforms. The vast majority of public discourse, | news and financial transactions take place on these feudal | fiefdoms. | | This is an oversight in the current legal framework, and will | have to be corrected eventually. | mattbee wrote: | > This is disingenuous. Already credit card companies have | begun to de-platform people. Once Visa and AmEx refuse to | do business with you, you are on increasingly thin ice. If | both Google and Apple refuse to host your app in their App | Stores, what exactly is your recourse? | | Host on your own infrastructure. Present a mobile- | responsive web site. Take Bitcoin. | | (we're talking, politely, about free speech extremists - so | none of this seems wildly inappropriate, right?) | whateveracct wrote: | > Host on your own infrastructure. Present a mobile- | responsive web site. Take Bitcoin. | | This is all fair. If your goal is to exist on the fringe | of the acceptable and legal, you're going to have to DIY. | ssalazar wrote: | If banks and a score of major tech companies independently | decide not to do business with someone, maybe that someone | is the problem. | MrBuddyCasino wrote: | There was a time when many businesses refused service to | blacks and jews. By our logic, that would have been right | and proper. | | As a bonus, I'll just add this one: https://en.wikipedia. | org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... | ssalazar wrote: | Not my logic. Refusing service to someone based on their | sexual orientation, religion, or color of their skin is a | very different moral proposition than refusing service | based on facilitating the subversion of the | democratically elected government that sustains said | business. | war1025 wrote: | Then add political affiliation as a protected class and | prosecute people who break actual laws. | | My personal opinion is that this discussion about tech, | politics, censorship, etc. is something that needs to | happen, and maybe all parties were completely within | their rights to act how they did. | | There are a lot of people who don't see that as self- | evident, and what they are hearing is "if you are pro- | Trump, you deserve to be a social pariah." That is a real | quick path to radicalization. | | Society is based on a set of mutually agreed upon rules. | If you convince enough people through your actions that | the rules are "Heads I win, Tails you lose", then they'll | decide not to play by those rules anymore. And then all | hell breaks loose. | anaerobicover wrote: | > Society is based on a set of mutually agreed upon | rules. | | Agreed, and it follows from that that "political | affiliation" protection _cannot_ include "wants to | destroy the government" -- no matter from what quadrant | that sentiment flows (anarchist, socialist, fascist, | whatever). | | Agreeing to democracy -- and probably republicanism -- | (note, both lowercase) is a bright line across which | you've really decided to step outside of our mutual | rules. | ssalazar wrote: | Neither "conservatives", "republicans", nor any other | actual political affiliation are being shut out by any of | these companies. People who affiliate with "opposing a | democratic election with direct violence" are. | war1025 wrote: | > People who affiliate with "opposing a democratic | election with direct violence" are. | | The trouble is that many of the same people saying these | actions were perfectly acceptable also have a habit of | casually stating that all people who voted for Trump are | the irredeemable scum of the earth. | whatthesmack wrote: | I don't doubt that it could be used as a hint among other | points, but doesn't that approach scream "tyranny of the | mob"? How often in the past has a minority view been | objectively right and a majority view been wrong? For | example, Galileo was accused of heresy due to his belief | that the Earth revolved around the sun. The "maybe that | someone is the problem" view would say Galileo was the | problem. | robertlagrant wrote: | History is full of people whose thinking stopped at "no | smoke without fire". Those people are still here today. | joshuamorton wrote: | The free market argument is that it isn't tyranny of the | mob. It's tyranny of the market. The companies are | responding to market forces, which implies that _so many_ | people are concerned that it 's actually a democratic | push of people voting with their wallets. | cheeseomlit wrote: | In 1984 everyone hated Goldstein's guts, but was he | really the problem? | Avamander wrote: | > Already credit card companies have begun to de-platform | people. | | For a while now. Sex workers, sex shops have complained | about it for years. Nobody cared. I find it ironic that the | same group of people advocating against consumer and worker | protections now seem to demand them. | protonimitate wrote: | > Nowadays, the public square, the thing that the | constitution is supposed to protect, which is the | difference between feudalism and democracy, is de-facto | (though not de-jure), owned by monopolistic corporations. | | That's quite the exaggeration. You can quite literally | still gather in a physical public square. Just because it's | more convenient to do so online doesn't mean it's a granted | right. | | > The vast majority of public discourse, news and financial | transactions take place on these feudal fiefdoms. | | And? If a bank decides they don't want you as a customer, | you can still perform cash transactions. You aren't | entitled to a bank account just because the majority of | people do banking. | speeder wrote: | > You can quite literally still gather in a physical | public square. | | You can? Last I checked I can't, if I do that I get | arrested for breaking social distancing... | | > you can still perform cash transactions. | | You mean, like in Japan and Sweden, that decided to | attempt to go cashless by creating more and more rules on | cash so that only debit (or credit) cards are practical? | GcVmvNhBsU wrote: | That's quite a pedantic interpretation of gathering in a | public square at a particular moment in time where doing | so is detrimental to the health and economy of a | community. In the event that you're not disingenuously | asking that question, as with all things, "it depends", | on specific local ordinance, how many people, the ability | to maintain six feet distance, etc. | anaerobicover wrote: | > if I do that I get arrested for breaking social | distancing... | | This is inaccurate at best. The gathering in D.C. last | Wednesday had a legal permit for thousands of people to | join. | free_rms wrote: | We've built a society without physical public squares, | for the most part, though, and substituted them with the | virtual. | whoopdedo wrote: | Also, what Parler was doing was not so much "gathering in | the public square" as they were renting a storefront in a | privately owned mall. The mall owners are well within | their rights to evict the tenant. | Closi wrote: | > No, because you don't need AWS or Twitter or Cloudflare or | any of the name tech companies to run a high-traffic web site | successfully. | | The problem is you need to rely on someone. | mattbee wrote: | You need to rely on the net as a whole - which allows for | multiple hosts and carriers and a lot of flexibility | between them. | Closi wrote: | But there are two problems: | | 1) Some parts are still single points of failure, e.g. | domains, dns servers | | 2) There are switching costs (particularly on the infra | slide) both in time and money (time was the issue here). | zhobbs wrote: | You need an ISP right? You think telecom companies are | anxious to provide them bandwidth? | evgen wrote: | Telecom companies are common carriers and do not have the | luxury of being able to deny customers access if they are | not breaking the law. Nothing preventing these people from | starting up their own ISP and hosting company. | uberduper wrote: | Nothing stopping them from fabricating their own silicon | too, right? How far down this hole till we reach the | bottom? | | I wonder if this was the same sort of argument used to | justify denying minorities homes / home loans? "Well | they're free to build their own house!" "Well they're | free to cut their own lumber!" "Well they're free to | forge their own hammers!" "Well they're free to..." | filoeleven wrote: | Denying people homes or loans because of race is vastly | different, because one's race is an inherited physical | characteristic.[1] Here, companies are denying service to | Parler based on the beliefs (edit: and behavior) of its | users. | | This situation lies somewhere between "refusing service | based on someone's religion" and "refusing service | because I just don't like them." Political affiliation is | not yet recognized as a religious belief, so they are not | a protected class. I don't know enough about the law to | say on what grounds a company stands if they drop/refuse | service because they think someone is being a dick. | | [1] it's more nuanced than that of course, but I'm | speaking broadly here | minkzilla wrote: | Thank you for this example. I'll be using it. I've been | struggling to articulate that just because technically | someone is free to do something doesn't mean they aren't | being meaningfully hindered from doing it. | mattbee wrote: | Depends where in the world they are. But US carriers are | nowhere near as fussy over who they supply unless their | clients end up overwhelming their networks. | treis wrote: | But you do need Google and Apple to have a mobile app. | | I do agree with you that AWS dropping them isn't evidence of | a monopoly. There's plenty of competitors in that space. None | of them, however, are going to touch Parler with a 10ft pole | at this point. | klyrs wrote: | You don't need google to side-load apps. | maxfurman wrote: | Apple and Google can't stop you from providing a working | mobile-responsive web app | mmis1000 wrote: | Apple do it in certain degree. By makes their mobile | browser extreme buggy and feature lacking. You don't even | have proper notification support on it. How could it be | used as a proper app? A social app that can't tell you | that someone send a message to you sounds a no-go to me. | Grustaf wrote: | They could prevent people from accessing them on their | phones though, let's see how long it takes. | klyrs wrote: | DoH is gonna throw a huge wrench into that plan. | Zambyte wrote: | Likely not at all for Apple. | evgen wrote: | Like how they prevent people from getting the ISIS | websites, Hamas websites, neo-Nazi web sites? Looks like | they have more than a decade to do so and still nothing. | Maybe your hyperbolic slippery slope argument is wrong? | Grustaf wrote: | Many of these are still allowed on Twitter, so I'm not | sure what your argument is. | | And I'm saying they "could". They might decide not to. | | Although I don't think anyone could have foreseen level | of censorship we have now, even 5 years ago, so who knows | what it will look like in 2025. | | And I think if you ask the average HN reader he wouldn't | be opposed to blocking websites for political reasons. | [deleted] | gamblor956 wrote: | _On the other hand, do we really want a handful of unelected | billionaires deciding what is acceptable speech - whether or | not we agree with them?_ | | That has always been the history of media, see Hearst, Murdoch, | Mercer, etc. The democracy of the early Internet was the | _exception_ from billionaires being in charge, not the norm. | | Hearst used to _be_ the voice of print media for decades. | | The situation in radio is the same as it is on the internet: a | few publicly-owned companies own a supermajority of the FM | airwaves. If you wonder why you can change the station and hear | the same song simultaneously on 5 different stations, it's | because they're all owned by the same company. | | In TV, for most of the past 2 decades, conservative | billionaires have owned more than 75% of the public TV stations | in the U.S. and Australia, and have been using that bully | pulpit on behalf of conservatives during that time. Murdoch | especially was instrumental in providing Trump (and other | extremist candidates like Cruz) thousands of hours of free | coverage during the 2016 campaign. The ownership groups would | regularly interfere with local media and demand they either air | or avoid topics as directed by ownership. Where was | conservative outrage over billionaires deciding speech during | this time? | 1123581321 wrote: | I think one difference is that people inhabit and create | social media in a way that they didn't with print and TV. A | significant percentage of our lives is spent in these de | factor public squares. | | As a media company that 'creates' tweets to be displayed on | CNN, etc., or read by logged out users, the analogy to | traditional media is more straightforward. | zarkov99 wrote: | How was it different from Facebook? Plenty of hate there, for | months, why aren't they shutdown? | | Just listen to the Parler executives account of what happened. | Contrary to all the nonsense being spewed by ideologues, Parler | did have a moderation policy that prohibited incitement to | violence, and they did enforce it, but it was neither perfect | nor instantaneous (since, by deliberate choice, only humans | were involved). They also complied to the requests from the | three tech titans, but of course that did not matter, their | fate was sealed before the first letter was sent. | | This is a moment of astonishing hypocrisy and terrible abuse of | power. Silicon Valley has proven to half of America that the | system is rigged beyond recourse, and for a number of those | Americans that might be the straw that breaks the camels back, | leading them into radicalization and terrorism. It would be | very wise for all of us in tech, in any position of influence, | to urge calm and dialogue and to provide space for all speech | that is not urging violence. We are not children to throw away | our country because of a single deranged fool. We need to show | to the country that tech is not an instrument available to only | those of a certain ideological bent and that we can talk and | sort out our differences without violence or repression. | colinmhayes wrote: | Parler was created to be a place where the alt-right could | freely spout their lies without fear of censorship. Facebook | has that, but it's not the reason the platform exists. The | intent is completely different. | zarkov99 wrote: | And who is it that decides what is Parler's intent and | allots the corresponding thought-crime punishment? I am | sorry but your point is absurd. | sbarre wrote: | People digging into Parler found out that all new users | were shadowbanned by default until a group of like-minded | moderators reviewed and approved their posts. | | These moderators were overwhelmingly MAGA/Trump | supporters, so I'm sure you can guess what kind of posts | they expected to see before they unblocked a new user. | | This was all shared/revealed on Twitter, so take it as | "evidence" with whatever grain of salt you like, but | people didn't just make up these claims about what Parler | was.. | | So while perhaps Parler claimed to be a place for open | debate and unrestricted ideas, it is seems that was just | a thin cover for their much more focused goal of being a | home for all this extremist right-wing talk in America. | zarkov99 wrote: | Do you have a good reference that summarizes these | findings? I would like to learn more about this. | arethuza wrote: | "do we really want a handful of unelected billionaires deciding | what is acceptable speech" | | That's pretty much been newspapers in the UK for as long as I | can remember! | Synaesthesia wrote: | Yes but the solution is not to now hand them more power. | vehementi wrote: | More, or less? It's easier than ever to DIY a site on your | own infrastructure and be reachable by everyone in the | world | guerrilla wrote: | Can you DIY your own domain registrar and payment | processor though? | CrazyPyroLinux wrote: | Until they coordinate to shut you down... | amanaplanacanal wrote: | I'm in the US, and old enough to remember the time before the | Internet, and that's what I remember. You had three or so TV | networks and a handful of national magazines and newspapers. | Big tech isn't really any different from the media zeitgeist | I grew up with. | | It's just the last 20 years or so of everybody having a | megaphone that is outside the norm. | Zambyte wrote: | It is very different. Everyone saw the same or very similar | information on the TV. People watching the same channels | would see the exact same thing. | | With social media, your feed is perfectly catered to you as | an individual, by using as much data on you as they can get | their hands on, and a nearly endless supply of content from | the "megaphones" of other users. Even if you have many of | the same friends as someone, and politically align with | them, you probably would find scrolling through their feed | to be less interesting than scrolling through your own. | kolbe wrote: | > On the other hand, do we really want a handful of unelected | billionaires deciding what is acceptable speech | | Elected billionaires (and millionaires/thousandaires) don't do | much better. | [deleted] | Grustaf wrote: | Isn't the solution pretty simple? Make platforms choose, either | only remove illegal material, or be regulated as a publisher. | Would take care of calls to violence and freedom of speech. | exporectomy wrote: | Would also put a huge burden on small businesses. I run a | little forum for by business. I want to remove spam and off- | topic posts, so I'll be classed as a publisher, but I don't | want to be subject to restrictions of "Publishers may be held | liable for omissions, mistakes, and transgressions of their | authors". What if a user quotes somebody else's words but | doesn't use proper quotation marks? My problem! | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | I believe the market will work it out. They overuse this power | there will be consequences/outcry. We can figure it out when we | get there. I'm not worried about any slippery slope. | charly187 wrote: | "just like I wouldn't bat an eye for AWS taking down an ISIS | recruitment site, I don't really see any loss here." | | There were about 10 million people on Parler before it was | taken down. If you really think its comporable to an ISIS | recruitment site, we got a much, much bigger problem here. | riccccccc wrote: | Lets not forget that Twitter just last month signed a new deal | with Amazon to be hosted on AWS. Don't suppose this has | anything to do with Amazon booting Twitter's largest competitor | from the platform do you? | | As for hateful rhetoric on Parler, that same hateful rhetoric | exists on Twitter as well, don't fool yourself, it is only the | fact that it is the left threatening the right that anyone | allows it. Remember when Kathy Griffin held the bloody head of | the President, or the current rise up and kill cops tweets you | find everywhere on Twitter. Or the white people should all be | dead tweets? Whether you agree to it or not does not therefore | make hate speech. There is no clear cut defined line for hate | speech to begin with. Anything can be declared hate speech, | hell what I am saying now could be considered hate speech | because I actually defend Parler and the people on its right to | speech. At least then we can show examples of see this guy | right here? He is a moron and believes in really dumb stuff. | All they are doing by silencing these people is forcing them | deeper underground where even more nefarious ideas and figures | lie becoming more radicalized and more violent. But I guess | that is what establishment wants, a perpetual idea to scare | people with so that they give up even more freedom of thought. | hintymad wrote: | I don't know why it's right to ban conspiracies. Conspiracies | are to be debunked, not banned. Otherwise, people who believe | such conspiracies simply go underground and we end up | cultivating anger, distrust, and cynicism. Is that covid-19 | would turn into a global pandemic back in Feb a conspiracy? Is | criticizing USSR in the 30s a conspiracy? Is that earth is not | the center of our universe a conspiracy 700 years ago? Is that | FBI's infiltration and surveillance on political groups a | conspiracy? Are all the questioning on the reasons for the US | to invade Iraq conspiracy theories? Where are the WMDs now? | | In general, are we sure that no conspiracy ever turned out to | be true? How many heresies turned out to be correct and changed | the course of our history? And how many people were persecuted | in the name of spreading conspiracy? Why are we so afraid of | conspiracies? | markkanof wrote: | Right. It's frustrating that the term conspiracy theory has | become a blunt weapon that can be used to quickly dismiss | allegations of wrong doing and paint the accuser as a fringe | lunatic. Sometimes people do evil things or conspire with | others to do evil things (see Tuskegee experiments, Epstein, | etc.). Just because someone doesn't currently have | irrefutable proof that something happened doesn't mean that | they shouldn't be able to talk about it. | JKCalhoun wrote: | > I don't know why it's right to ban conspiracies. | Conspiracies are to be debunked, not banned. | | No one is threatening to kill an elected official over | _grassy knolls_. | | Times change. | hintymad wrote: | That's hate speech, and it's illegal to threaten a person | with death. It's different from banning conspiracy theory | eigenrick wrote: | Most of the modern, big conspiracies have been thoroughly | debunked, but that doesn't stop their spread. Any flat- | earther has heard all of the flat-earth debunking. Sadly, I | know a handful of flat-earthers, and I tried arguing for a | while, but it does no good. Instead it appears that the | theorists double-down on the conspiracy. | | I think people believe in conspiracies, not because they're | mislead on a certain topic, but because they _want_ to | believe. So debunking conspiracies is attacking their faith, | which is what causes zealotry. | | It's more like spreading a religion, which, yeah, you can't | really ban it. You just have to let people do their thing. | | tl;dr I agree that one shouldn't censor it, but only because | it does no good. | agloeregrets wrote: | > On the other hand, do we really want a handful of unelected | billionaires deciding what is acceptable speech - whether or | not we agree with them? We talk about net neutrality, but | shouldn't we apply the same standard to hosts like AWS? | | I find it ironic that the ban is what makes people think the | techCos are controlling society rather than the fact that all | actions of social networks and hosting services impact society. | Like the time when FB make some news feeds more negative to | track impact and engagement. Or how the radicalization of users | on FB can happen due to the Algo. | | Ultimately this is a legislative failure, but it also is how a | free market should defend itself of dangerous content as well. | (keep in mind a Civil war 2 isn't exactly great for the | economy). | | What is wild is that the laws for this all exist and are in | use. The behavior here is the use of Section 230 as designed. | The definition of insurrection and hate speech are all defined. | Clearly what has happened is actually late action by social | platforms rather than overreach as the US Gov lacks any mode to | actually take on this content. | c54 wrote: | We can empower democratic institutions like the FTC to be able | to take action in these cases, rather than leaving important | decisions in the hands of private corporations. | | > ...what Parler is doing should be illegal, because it should | be responsible on product liability terms for the known | outcomes of its product, aka violence. ... But what Parler is | doing is _not_ illegal, because Section 230 means it has no | obligation for what its product does.... Similarly, what these | platforms did in removing Parler should be illegal, because | they should have a public obligation to carry all customers | engaging in legal activity on equal terms. But it's not | illegal, because there is no such obligation. These are private | entities operating public rights of way, but they are not | regulated as such. | | [0] https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/a-simple-thing-biden- | can-... | trianglem wrote: | Absolutely not. That sounds like Soviet nonsense. | throw0101a wrote: | > _On the other hand, do we really want a handful of unelected | billionaires deciding what is acceptable speech - whether or | not we agree with them? We talk about net neutrality, but | shouldn 't we apply the same standard to hosts like AWS?_ | | And what did start-ups do before AWS _et al_? Didn 't they | 'just': rent a rack, fill it with computers, get an ASN/IP | block, and make it accessible by DNS? | | I understand it's more 'agile' to just spin up instances as | needed, but are we in a place that the Old Way can no longer | work? (At least theoretically.) | | Doesn't Stack Overflow (still?) run on their own hardware? | | * https://nickcraver.com/blog/2016/03/29/stack-overflow-the- | ha... | kevwil wrote: | Gonna disagree there a bit, semantically. Parler was a no- | censorship social site, open to everyone. Extreme right-wing | people flocked to it while very few people with other | perspectives did. Parler being a hate site was not purely of | their making, but rather a result of society's bias toward | silencing opposing views. We need more people like Daryl Davis | (a black jass musician who has converted hundreds of KKK | members through kindness and friendship and music) so that | censorship seems less and less like a good idea. | | I'm not surprised at the end result, but the effort to retain | free speech was a valiant one. Forcing extremist views | underground doesn't silence them, it emboldens them and makes | it harder to know what they're up to. Not a good idea. | ForHackernews wrote: | I don't think this is exactly true, according to other | seemingly well-informed comments on this site, e.g. | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25731121 | | Parler _was_ moderated, and it was explicitly moderated for | coherence with a right-wing /reactionary viewpoint. It was | not a neutral, unfiltered platform. | Miner49er wrote: | > Parler was a no-censorship social site, open to everyone. | | This is just false. They censored all kinds of things: | antifa, parody accounts, obscene usernames, porn, etc. | | https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200630/23525844821/parle. | .. | MrMan wrote: | "society's bias toward silencing opposing views." | | censorship is NOT the underlying problem here | bigmattystyles wrote: | I'm in the same boat as you - I'm glad parler is gone but I go | back and forth on the implications of the ability of a few to | silence so many - the most reasonable way I've come to think of | it is if David Duke (huge racist scumbag) suddenly wanted to go | on CNN and speak for an hour once a week - should CNN let him? | You wouldn't think twice about it, you'd likely think - why | would CNN have to comply? It's not a perfect analogy, but | that's the best way I've been able to think of it. In the end, | it's lose-lose for non fascists. While we're all debating | whether there was overreach and or if it should be mitigated, | actual fascists are regrouping and planning their next assault. | GcVmvNhBsU wrote: | Are they actually being silenced, as in someone is forcing | them to not express their thoughts? Can they not congregate | together the old fashioned way and have as much free speech | as they want? | threatofrain wrote: | We should really be talking about Ron Paul because as a test | plaintiff Parker is awful. Per their CEO, law firms, banks and | payment providers, mail and texting services have also | cancelled on them. | | By that point, what would having your own tech stack do? How do | you even collect revenue when banks and payment providers | cancel on you? This is the power of freedom of association at | work, the power behind cancellation. | CrazyPyroLinux wrote: | Indeed - Ron Paul is not so much the "canary in the coalmine" | - this is the whole mining crew succumbing to the toxic | fumes! | | Even for people who don't agree with his libertarian | politics, there's no arguing that he is anything short of an | uncommonly decent man. He's certainly the closest I've ever | seen anyone come to being the mythical "honest politician." | So _of course_ they 're attacking him... | trianglem wrote: | What? He wrote a whole bunch of extremely racist op-eds | about how black people are inferior and slavery was a boon | to them. Your post is a lot of dissembling nonsense. | CrazyPyroLinux wrote: | That seems unlikely. Do you have links to any reliable | primary sources, if they haven't been conveniently | censored? | | I have a hunch that any "extremely racist" comments may | have been more to the effect that although slavery was | very bad indeed, there might have been better ways to | dismantle it than by half the country fighting the other | half [0], which is a sentiment worth considering in the | context of current events. | | [0] https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/12/bob-murphy/ron- | paul-and-... | awillen wrote: | They're not deciding what is acceptable speech. They're | deciding what is acceptable speech for their platforms and | services. And given how absolutely insane and extreme that | speech became before they took action, it's just strange to | look at these companies like they're a problem. They tolerated | increasingly violent and hateful rhetoric until people | literally stormed the Capitol, then took action against the | worst offender that helped to plan violence against our elected | officials. This isn't some theoretical case of billionaires | imposing their worldviews by banning people that we should be | tremendously fearful of. | dahfizz wrote: | > This isn't some theoretical case of billionaires imposing | their worldviews by banning people that we should be | tremendously fearful of. | | I think you've missed the point. The concern OP raises is | that this is no longer theoretical - these few billionaires | actually can impose their worldview by controlling speech. In | this case, we can all agree that Parler had to go. But the | precedent / principle of the issue can be considered | separately. | | > They're not deciding what is acceptable speech. They're | deciding what is acceptable speech for their platforms and | services. | | This is a distinction without a difference. If the major | platforms all ban you, you are silenced. Its time we | recognize the power these platforms have. | big_curses wrote: | > This is a distinction without a difference. | | I disagree, there is an extreme difference there. Freedom | of speech is specifically in regards to the government | giving you the negative right of being able to say whatever | you want without government prosecution (aside from some | edge cases like direct threats and the like, which are | closer to actual violence). What they do not do is | guarantee you a platform. You are free to say whatever you | like, but you are not owed the right to be listened to. | Removing someone from a platform is not silencing them. A | private company does not owe you anything, let alone | service. | robertlagrant wrote: | No. The first amendment is about the government. The | concept of freedom of speech is broader. If in a pandemic | I can only legally communicate via digital tools, and the | billionaires running the digital tools all decide to ban | me, I am silenced. | skuthus wrote: | >the billionaires running the digital tools all decide to | ban me, I am silenced. | | How so? Are you incapable of using non-digital media to | communicate? Are you incapable of creating your own | digital platforms for communication or using alternative, | less popular means to do so? Are you prevented from going | to city hall, council meetings, political rallies, or | voting? Your speech as it relates to your rights granted | in the constitution remains completely intact. Your | rights are unaffected by your access to certain digital | platforms. | Miraste wrote: | I support banning Parler, but this argument becomes more | transparently untrue by the day. The internet _is_ speech | now. Visiting city halls and council meetings doesn 't | affect elections or policies, voting is useless without | being part of an organized bloc, which can no longer | happen without the internet, and Parler was one of | several alt-right attempts to make their own platform-- | control of the internet is centralized enough that making | a platform for non-technical users against the will of | the megacorporations is not possible. | | If you don't believe free speech absolutism should be | allowed, say so, but free speech and this level of | corporate dominance are not compatible. | xxpor wrote: | >Visiting city halls and council meetings doesn't affect | elections or policies, | | Oh how I wish this were actually true sometimes. Try | going to any zoning board meeting. | skuthus wrote: | I agree that corporations should be curtailed in both | their size and power. This would resolve the paradox of | speech being free, but it's platforms being controlled by | a few large organizations. However, to say that free | speech is absolute is absurd, because absolute free | speech in this context would require the limitation of | rights of organizations and owners too. | Miraste wrote: | > However, to say that free speech is absolute is absurd, | because absolute free speech in this context would | require the limitation of rights of organizations and | owners too. | | I agree, but that's a common position here. | cm2187 wrote: | If you are on the no fly list of an airline, aren't you | free to buy your own B787, get a pilot license, get the | relevant airport slots and authorisations and go fly by | yourself anywhere you want? I mean in theory yes. | skuthus wrote: | precisely. A better way to look at it is that you are | free to travel by other means. The burden is convenience. | 8note wrote: | It is not true that you can only legally communicate via | digital tools. The US still has a post office | ccn0p wrote: | You're right, but the reality is that physical mail is no | longer an effective form of communication relative to the | speed of online platforms in most cases. | [deleted] | big_curses wrote: | If the first amendment and your concept of freedom of | speech don't line up, then one or the other need to | change I would think. If a right is not recognized by | others/the government, then it effectively doesn't exist. | That's not to say it's not right or that you couldn't | rationally defend it though. | | >If in a pandemic I can only legally communicate via | digital tools | | I see the conflict you're bringing up, it's in effect | illegal to communicate in person a lot of the time due to | the pandemic, so digital tools are very useful for you to | be able to communicate, but if you are somehow banned | from those you have few options, if any. I think the | thing that is incorrect here is actually the government | making it illegal to communicate via non-digital tools, | even if a lot of times it is in an individual's best | interest to stay inside. And once again, no one owes you | a platform. You are, in your words, silenced, but I don't | think that that is an issue that requires government | action. | Svettie wrote: | I think it could require government action: I could argue | that it was government inaction in allowing a | monopoly/oligopoly over the conduits of free speech that | is now depriving me of my rights. | notahacker wrote: | There's no shortage of conduits for free speech you have | a right to use, on and off the internet. | | The oligopoly only concerns distribution to the widest | possible audience, whether it's social media or broadcast | media. And even a First Amendment constrained government | is allowed to pick and choose which speech it | _distributes_ | big_curses wrote: | For what reason are we considering these platforms | "conduits of free speech"? They are simply private | services, private property. In the same way you can | legally remove people from your home that you don't want | in there, they can bar you from their service. They also | didn't always exist. At what point in their existence | would you argue that being banned from being able to use | them was depriving you of some right? Can they have a | monopoly over all of the "conduits of free speech" if all | the old methods of communication still exist? If those | alternatives exist, could they really be called a | monopoly? (Although for things like Twitter, they're | definitely not a monopoly, but if we're talking about | govt backed ISPs, which can be a monopoly, then that is | indeed a different story, but I would argue that ISPs | should be divorced from any government | regulation/subsidies). | Svettie wrote: | "In the same way you can legally remove people from your | home that you don't want in there" -> I agree with you in | principle, but this is the type of thing where the | principle doesn't generalize at every level of scale, and | at a big enough scale it becomes problematic. | | Let's consider the other extreme with a fictional | corporation "MEGA INC", which suppose owns all web | hosting, all ISPs. Let's also throw in that they have a | monopoly over paper production and publishing. Now, do | you think your argument that "this private entity can do | whatever it wants" is problematic? I should hope so. | | I'm not making the case that it's black/white and that | this situation with Big Tech is equivalent to MEGA INC. | But, it's not that our free speech rights are binary. My | point is simply that we're somewhere along the spectrum | spanning "private home" <-> "MEGA INC", and at this point | rights are actually being diminished because of the | oligopolistic nature of a significant corner where | discourse happens. | | So, unfortunately, I think it's a nuanced situation | that's not easily reduced to a simplistic principle such | as what you've stated. We have clear principles to reason | about the extremes, but it's hard to make an argument in | the hairy middle because both can be made to apply. | peytn wrote: | PG&E is a private company, and I'm pretty sure they owe | me service as long as I pay my bill. I could be totally | wrong. Who even knows anymore. | sanderjd wrote: | Utility companies are for all intents and purposes, | governmental. Regulating social networks like utilities | is one possible course of action our society could | choose. But it is not how we do it today. | peytn wrote: | That is my point. | mperham wrote: | PG&E is a utility monopoly and regulated differently than | a typical private business for that reason. | alasdair_ wrote: | PG&E is a government-granted monopoly and is close to | being part of the government itself (in that the | government gets to decide how much profit the company is | allowed to make, and insists they service every | individual). | | I can see the argument that basic Internet access should | be similarly regulated, especially as it uses either | public frequencies (e.g. 5G) or public land (sidewalks | etc) to provide the service. | dahfizz wrote: | I agree that nobody's first amendment rights were | violated. I maintain that big tech is controlling | _acceptable speech_. All the major platforms are working | together to decide what kind of speech society gets to | hear, which is dangerous. | | First amendment rights are orthogonal. | uep wrote: | > What they do not do is guarantee you a platform. | | I think this is a really important point. How I have | framed this to others is: "the 6 o'clock news isn't | required to give you airtime." | | In the past, you could write articles to the newspaper, | or contact the news and hope they picked up your story. | There was not a right to be heard. | | That said, I'm still not sure how I feel about what has | transpired in the last week. Freedom of speech (as a | principle, not in the US legal sense) has always felt | like a core principle of the Internet. | Splendor wrote: | > Its time we recognize the power these platforms have. | | We have. That's why millions of people have pushed these | companies to take a stand against hate. None of these | companies are doing this because they want to lose money. | If they thought it would be profitable long-term, they | would keep doing it. It's the invisible hand of the market | that you're really upset with here. | ccn0p wrote: | don't discount the power of personal ideologies inside of | these companies as well. | agloeregrets wrote: | Casual reminder that the slippery slope fallacy is | ultimately a fallacy. | | I think the issue isn't really controlled speech with these | platforms but more often a loss of control of the | narrative. They are ill-preppared to deal with hate speech | and often will act as the very propagators of it. (See FB | in 2016). The real issue to be found is the massive control | they have in light of their blindness to the context of | their product and inability to enact real censorship of | things that are truly intolerant. Personally looking from | the outside in, I think that makes them a long-term risk to | themselves rather than just a risk to society. It's worth | noting that this will likely lead to a platform that | intentionally 'free' to intolerant behavior that will | compete and likely compete well as it will be additive to | those looking for hate. | mful wrote: | Modeling them as independent businesses that can decide -- | based on any non-protected principle they choose -- to censor | speech is too generic to be useful. They are closer to | telephone or radio or broadcast TV companies than to private | enterprise as an overarching category. Communication business | are, of course, regulated around what they can and cannot say | on air (the broadcast ones, specifically), and we probably | need a similar approach to handling social media. | | Yet we do not treat them like regulated broadcast media, | which I guess is unsurprising in that regulation lags behind | technology. In the context of Parler, it seems they tried to | make the best of a bad situation. | | But I don't know that we should cheer this as "the right | outcome", even if, in this case, it seems justified (my gut | is that this was the right thing to do, in this specific | case). It's time to ask broader questions around whether | these companies should have that power at all, or if we need | government to step in. | dehrmann wrote: | AWS is more interesting in that case, though, since it's | usually transparent to end users. AWS not doing business with | Parler is a little like a craft store not selling posterboard | and markers to a klansman, or a gun store not selling rounds | to the guy who keeps talking about insurrection. | ip26 wrote: | I would liken it to a contract print house deciding they | don't want to run the Unabomber Manifesto in their presses | anymore. | ldoughty wrote: | From the letter AWS sent, a better analogy would be: | | Craft store noticed their brand logo was on a poster board | with messages calling for rape and execution of named | individuals (a clearly illegal act). Craft store said in | their sale recipt that the reserve the right to stop | serving customers that promote illegal conduct. | | First, however, the craft store asked the organizer to stop | providing their poster boards to people organizing mass | rape and execution event planning. "Please moderate, and | you can continue to use our service" | | The organizer days "go bleep yourself", to the store, | followed by "if my members want to organize a mass | execution of people, that's their protected speech!" | | Store says "okay, your not welcome here anymore, see our | terms of service" | | AWS gave them a chance.. but at the end of the day, those | messages calling for illegal acts are stored on AWS | servers.. and Parler wanted to promote that kind of content | to continue and amplify (it's good for business), but every | day AWS is probably getting 50 warrants for information | tied to having Parler as a customer. AWS service mark up | doesn't cover 20 full time lawyers | esyir wrote: | I'll say if you're making this argument, then aws should | be responsible for all content on aws servers. No hosting | protections, direct responsibility. After all, the | illegal data was on their servers, thus they should be | directly responsible. | freeone3000 wrote: | They are? They cooperate with law enforcement for illegal | material takedowns on a regular basis. You might have | heard of raids for botnet hosting, or if not those, the | ones for child porn or movie piracy. AWS is absolutely | committed to having no illegal activity on their servers. | spaced-out wrote: | >gun store not selling rounds to the guy who keeps talking | about insurrection | | Yes, imagine a small town, and there's a guy known for | always ranting about the coming insurrection, pedophile | conspiracies, how "The Great Awakening" is near... then one | day he walks into the town gun store and asks to buy a | bunch of AR-15s and a ton of ammo, and the owner of the | store says: "Hmm... no." | bbreier wrote: | To elaborate on your point here, gun store owners | choosing not to sell firearms to particular customers | because they suspect those customers are a danger to | themselves or others for any reason (including just the | owners' hunch) is very commonplace, and not generally | controversial. | klyrs wrote: | > ...or a gun store not selling rounds to the guy who keeps | talking about insurrection. | | If he follows that up with "Allahu Akbar," do you expect | the gun store to complete the sale, or call the feds? Is | that a limit on "freedom of religion"? | | Or if you go to buy a ton of fertilizer, and as they're | loading it into your truck, you talk about blowing up the | white house -- what do you think is gonna happen? | kofejnik wrote: | Russia's censorship laws are formulated around 'preventing | religious and ethnic hatred' (among other things). | danielrpa wrote: | Would Voltaire's famous "I disapprove of what you say, but I | will defend to the death your right to say it" apply here? | | Perhaps we need a better, faster judicial mechanism for taking | down "major content". I'm not saying the government is a great | solution for this problem, but IMHO it beats the status quo | until we can find a better system. | ip26 wrote: | Your right to say it (& not be jailed) | | Not your right to be provided an audience | srveale wrote: | Exactly. Can you demand to be broadcast by your local TV | station? Can you demand that your letter be published by | your newspaper? | | The right to a platform has never been guaranteed. The only | difference is that with social media, your message is | broadcast first and moderated after. | danielrpa wrote: | Interesting examples - both Newspapers and TV Stations, | for their public "platform" nature, don't enjoy certain | libel protections that Social Media does. | | FB's "platform" feature is largely listener-driven. You | can still use FB and not listen to persons X, Y and Z. | It's all posted by users, and users decide what to follow | or read (except paid content). Not like TV Stations and | Newspapers. That's what Social Media companies have been | telling us for a while! | | But if we want apply usual standards of platform rights | and responsibilities to FB, we should then require it to | also be responsible for what's posted there. | | You can't have it both ways. | yourapostasy wrote: | As much as some of the Parler content was definitely awful, | I've seen much worse on dialup BBS's and during the Great | Cognitive Corruption of Usenet that started in the 80's and | greatly accelerated onwards from there. | | I'm more troubled by the total cessation of infrastructure as | the mitigation of choice, rather than a temporary pause of | services. During the pause, work with law enforcement to | identify those specific posts that satisfy the _Brandenberg_ | "imminent" criteria, mark those as redacted, then return to | service. Leaving open possible further work with law | enforcement to share a feed and tie in redaction by future | judicial decisions. I'm hoping I missed where it says that | Parler was offered this choice and turned it down. | | I'm even more troubled by the continued "let them eat cake" | dismissive ennui of the chattering classes to the natural-world | plights of the most radicalized members of the Trump supporters | (and for that matter, to BLM supporters' plights treatment by | other chattering classes), as they're pretty much at the | "nothing left to lose" stage. Having been not simply ignored | since the 70's onwards, but jeered at, derided, and mocked, | instead of rehabilitating their life situations, has driven | them into the arms of malign ideologies that openly lie to them | fealty will improve their lot in life, when no other ideology | will have them. | | Just like in my enterprise work with my clients, when I hear | extreme dissatisfaction, that's an opportunity for me to | listen, empathize, then work together iteratively to solve | problems. Instead, the US treats such expressions as | opportunities to suppress. That only guarantees the pressure | builds up elsewhere you cannot predict (in enterprise work, it | often manifests as political chits being called in, and budget | found where none was found before to completely pivot away and | build the users' own solution, however imperfect it may be). | | The US treats many of its have-nots (all along the political | spectrum and not just along one vector) like it treats its | prisoners. Brutalize with platitude-laden inaction instead of | rehabilitate. It's no wonder the nation manufactures a | dictatorship-loving consent. | tjr225 wrote: | I keep seeing this sentiment pop up here on HN and I've come | at it in other posts. | | All of the Trump supporters I know are upper middle class | suburbanites who have been fairly well off for quite a while. | Not sure I have any empathy for the contempt at all. I just | don't buy this sob story what-so-ever. | | I feel even less bad for violent extremists that have zero | goals or demands except to destabilize everything because | they believe whatever they see on the internet. There is no | ideology for them to defend; only their right to hate. They | only want the ability to have whatever they believe to be | true to be the case even when it is not the case. | | Ironically, if the people who were truly destitute and down- | trodden could find some way to ignore the superficial | partisanship that they've been sold and unite under social | and economic policy we might have an actual movement on our | hands. Unfortunately they've all been convinced that their | superficial differences aren't superficial at all and that | the other side is wrong; now it appears at any cost. | yourapostasy wrote: | That's likely an artifact of the circles you run in. If | you're on HN, then odds are really good you don't mill | around in the lower socio-economic milieu many of the "foot | soldiers" of radical movements draw upon, whichever part of | the political spectrum we're discussing. Our very | vocabulary distinguishes us as a separate "other"; when I | speak with them, I have to consciously "tune into" their | preferred vocabularies. | | The financial bifurcation in the US and to a lesser extent | in many other parts of the developed world is quite big, | and I don't know how big it has to get before a _competent_ | demagogue gets traction in the US. The extremes in both the | GOP and the DNC have just been handed a dangerous working | template with Trump 's history lesson. They just learned | that extremism works, and it scales from local to national | politics. It was not always so; one of the salient features | of American politics in the past was just how consistently | difficult it was to move the center any appreciable | distance politically, the infamous "lumpentariat". | | I believe this is because the US valuation landscape is | fundamentally broken. This goes way beyond the economic or | financial system. How we account for value over time is | structured in very perverse incentive structures leading to | the power law popping up in an all-over fashion when in the | past it didn't use to dominate the landscape so much (it | had localized instantiations but these were more local | maxima than a general law more widely applicable). It's | generating a "desperation deciles" that the means and | averages of metrics sweep under statistical rugs. | | I think these deciles are mattering now due to the law of | large numbers. With "only" a 100M population base, such | deciles are manageable, whether through coercion | (unfavorable), assistance (nominal approach), or | generationally long-term rehabilitative policy like public | education (ideal). But I suspect there is something about | near-billion- and billion-scale population governance our | governing systems are not scaling to meet. | | Also, a consistent theme I see in these kinds of | discussions is similar to your "...if the people who were | truly destitute and down-trodden could find some way to | ignore the superficial partisanship that they've been sold | and unite under social and economic policy...". In my | humble and limited experience, the ones in the developed | world are short-term focused on survival, putting food on | the table and a roof over their heads, then with what | limited discretionary time and cognitive energy left over, | trying to find some happiness in a pretty bleak outlook as | globalism systemically blocks their avenues of escape. | | There are some limited avenues left, but the arithmetic | doesn't support lifting enough of the desperation deciles | out of poverty or functional poverty to matter through | transitioning them to plumbers, welders, fitters, rig work, | _etc._ While there are currently screaming needs for many | of those skills, it isn 't in the tens of millions scale | we're needing (law of large numbers). | | Poor people don't riot if their poverty is perceptibly, | contiguously improving over time. Rich people don't incite | malign ideologies if there aren't poor people who will act | as foot soldiers absorbing the brunt of adverse | consequences of swearing fealty to such beliefs. When there | is a chicken in every pot, people will riot over sports | teams, but not politics. Actual getting-policies-and- | legislation-established-and-practiced politics is dead-ass | boring to the vast majority, so getting this many people to | even pay attention to just the cartoonish depictions of | politics we see in the US now is a major signal. I | currently don't think it is a good signal. And I suspect it | is a more complex signal than "get the wrongthink upper | middle class suburbanites to shut up". But I'm just a | layperson throwing some brush strokes out there and wanting | to hear thoughts from folks like you. I hope I'm wrong- | wrong-wrong since I'm operating from very limited data. I | don't know what the hell the on-the-money forecasters are | making of all this, but in a world this big, I gotta | believe there is someone or some entity out there that has | had access to sufficient data and has been consistently | right for a couple decades plus, and some very wealthy | people are paying very dearly for their ongoing analysis. | [deleted] | grahamburger wrote: | > in an ideal world, we have laws applied even handedly to deal | with this | | We have laws protecting people from discrimination based on | race, sexuality, etc. A grocery store can't refuse to serve | people by race. Maybe we should expand these protected classes | and make sure they apply to Internet businesses as well. I | don't think we will (or should) expand them in such a way that | Parler would be included, though. | arbitrage wrote: | Hi friend. You don't need to dither over hate speech. It's | okay. | slapshot wrote: | My concern is not that AWS should be forced to host content | they don't want. It's that AWS (and Apple, Facebook, and | others) have misrepresented what they do. | | It's no shock that DailyKos shouldn't have to host pro-Trump | content. Nor should /theDonald have to host pro-Bernie content. | We all agree that people can choose who to associate with, and | that free association is important. | | But AWS (and Facebook and others) didn't say "we're sites that | present only one kind of content" the way /theDonald and | DailyKos did. They presented themselves as universal tools for | people to express themselves, build their own sites, install | apps, etc. | | So it comes as a shock when AWS says "we actually only want to | support sites that present views that Jeff Bezos thinks are | reasonable." And when Apple says "you can only download apps on | your phone that we think do a good enough job moderating." And | when Facebook bans people for posting wrong opinions. | | The government can't and probably shouldn't force AWS to host | content that Bezos doesn't agree with. It would be Amazon's | right to host only content that is pro-Trump, or equally | Amazon's right to only host content that is anti-Trump. But | when Amazon presents something as a neutral utility but | secretly enforces different rules, we can and should criticize | them. | | That's true even if all the content being removed today is | garbage. I haven't seen any "worthwhile" content that's been | affected by the recent moves, and I have never heard of any | valuable speech on Parler. But I am still concerned that Apple | gets to decide what apps I can install on my phone because they | don't like the content. For every Apple (managed in California | by socially liberal periople) there's a Walmart (managed in | Arkansas by social conservatives) that will take the same | powers and use them in a different way. Walmart is legally free | to remove pro-BLM books from their online bookshelves, but we | can and should criticize them if they do. | gyudin wrote: | I feel like erotic, kink and LGBTQ+ communities got hit with | all the new rules. Over the last few years they've been | kicked out of Tumblr, now Instagram, Twitch and Youtube | aren't really happy with non PG13 content, Apple refusing to | publish Fetlife app for years or Onlyfans, Pornhub deleting | all content from non-partners and so on... | | Honestly feels like just companies are trying to maximize | their profits and "don't be evil" became just an old memory. | erdeszt wrote: | I kind of feel the same as you. I'm happy that Parler is gone | but on the other hand I think that Google, Facebook, Amazon and | Twitter are monopolies and should be broken up. | sidr wrote: | These are 4 different companies that compete with each other | (Google Cloud vs. AWS and Facebook vs. Twitter, also although | you didn't list it Apple vs. Google) in the spaces relevant | to this conversation (cloud services, social media, and phone | apps). | | One can always list all the players in an industry and call | that set "a monopoly and should be broken up". Or we can just | take this for what it is, which is that some entity is so | toxic that none of these companies (which compete with each | other otherwise) want to touch it. | erdeszt wrote: | Google has monopoly on search, Amazon on online retail and | to a lesser extent cloud hosting, Facebook on social media. | Twitter on 140 character word dumps so that's maybe not at | the same level bad as the others. Edit: Apple doesn't | really have a monopoly on anything. | JohnBooty wrote: | Google, Facebook, Amazon and Twitter are monopolies | and should be broken up. | | Dominant market share != monopoly | | For a monopoly, you need anticompetitive practices. Is | Facebook unfairly preventing the success of other social | networks? A good example of a monopoly was 90's era | Microsoft, which prevented its OEMs from shipping competing | operating systems. | | Terminology aside, I completely agree with you that we need | far, far more choice in the marketplace. | erdeszt wrote: | Amazon: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/eu-to-investigate- | amazon-ove... & | https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2020/06/13/if- | amazo... Google: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/google- | sued-again-over-anti-0... & https://www.msn.com/en- | us/news/technology/anti-competitive-g... Facebook: | https://medium.com/swlh/facebook-is-killing-the- | competition-... & | https://thehill.com/policy/technology/529504-state-ags- | ftc-s... | | Granted these are just lawsuits at the moment and not final | verdicts but still it's not hard to see how they don't play | a fair game. | Grimm1 wrote: | I agree. I see a lot of people pushing to give them special | status or make them town squares and I think that is the | exact opposite solution we need. We should take anti-monopoly | action and foster competition in their respective markets | instead. | b0bb1z3r0 wrote: | You can still say what you want. It's just harder to say | DIVISIVE HATEFUL RACIST INCITING VIOLENCE against blank. (Caps | because I don't have italics on phone, not yelling). I control | what's on my private network. Issue is people "want" to use | these networks to spread their "#%$&PSx" to the largest | audience. These bad faith arguments, because you can't come to | "my house" and cause your trouble. No you don't have that | right. Do it at "your house". Can someone explain how | Twitter/Amazon/Apple/Google owe me? | baryphonic wrote: | > On one hand, Parler was a hate site, filled with conspiracy | theories, radicalization and racism. So it's no loss that it's | gone, and it took far too long to deal with it. And just like I | wouldn't bat an eye for AWS taking down an ISIS recruitment | site, I don't really see any loss here. | | (I'm going to leave aside the unfounded assertion that Parler | was a "hate site." If it is, then every popular website is a | "hate site," from Facebook and Google all the way down. Scores | of prominent people who aren't hateful but for bizarre Left- | wing constructions of the word "hate" use Parler to communicate | with millions of people who are themselves not hateful | conspiracy theorists.) | | I always feel there's an unjustified logical jump on the part | of authoritarian sentiments such as this. The argument seems to | be, "X hosts hateful content that it refuses to remove. If we | remove X, then we will have reduced hate." | | This doesn't make much sense. Has anyone's mind actually | changed because of Parler? It makes even less sense for | conspiracy theories, where censorship makes conspiracy | theorists feel like they're on the right track. | | I remember looking up some moon landing hoaxer content on | YouTube probably five to eight years ago. There was a lot of it | on YouTube, but then YouTube also recommended some debunking | videos (a few of which had been made specifically in response | to the conspiracy theory videos themselves). The debunking | videos were just frankly more persuasive. (The only issue with | my little experiment was that the "Algorithm" recommended me | conspiracy nonsense for a few weeks after.) There were no | passive-aggressive, condescending propaganda boxes, no appeals | to the authority of the media or legal system, no "fact | checks." Just arguments for and against. | | This is not to say that people can't do bad things with speech. | We have stories like a random lynch mob forming in India over a | viral series of videos shared via WhatsApp.[1] There are other | stories like this. All are appalling. And technology has | removed frictions that existed before to keep these things from | happening. | | But let's not forget that the world in which speech is | restricted is much, much scarier. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 | was perpetrated by the most powerful members of Rwandan | society, who used their monstrous power to slaughter Tutsis as | well as moderate Hutus who spoke against the killings. | | In the South under Jim Crow, speech was also violently | suppressed with the aid of the states, who turned a blind eye | to terrorist groups like the Klan going after black southerners | or even white "race traitors" with lynching. | | "Censorship, but only for the bad stuff" seems to be an | unworkable system. People get riled up, and the consequences | can be horrific, but they seem worse in a regime with heavy | censorship that doesn't allow a safety valve for the bad ideas. | | [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/pranavdixit/whatsapp- | de... | helen___keller wrote: | I don't think there's an easy answer. 2 possible solutions: | | (1) deplatforming could be either a democratic process, or be | challengeable through some kind of democratic process. | | (2) deplatforming could be at the sole discretion of platforms, | but the platforms themselves need to use open standards and | protocols such that it is sufficiently easy for those who were | deplatformed to switch to the opposition or self-platform (for | example: ios allowing competing app stores). This would be | difficult and technically challenging to enact in many | situations (what does it mean in the case of social networks | for example?), And if there's no competition we need antitrust | ASAP | | If _all_ the competition are also deplatforming you, I think at | a certain point it becomes fair to say that you were more or | less democratically rejected, much like if every bar in town | kicks out neo-nazis that 's not a failure of free speech but a | success of the free market. But that relies on a large, | healthy, robust competitive ecosystem which does not exist in a | billionaire-dominated tech scene. | kirghiz wrote: | A form of ostracism, you mean? | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism | weeboid wrote: | > (1) deplatforming could be either a democratic process, or | be challengeable through some kind of democratic process. | | Think gay wedding cakes | | > (2) ... but the platforms themselves need to use open | standards and protocols | | Open standards and protocols like `https` and HTML? | hn_asker wrote: | You as the consumer accepted the terms of service of the | hosting site. So don't be surprised when things like this | happen once you've violated the terms of service. | bordercases wrote: | This will push towards a balkanization of the Internet at the | platform level as people will want to self-determine the | terms of service for the basis of their communication. Second | boom spurred by corporate hubris. You might think there's | nothing wrong with this hubris, depending on how comfy your | pockets are when lined with their money. The grand majority | of the world will not agree - they are not paid by them, when | they are they are not treated fairly, and if they are treated | fairly they are likely within a sociological bubble. | JohnBooty wrote: | This will push towards a balkanization of the | Internet at the platform level as people will want | to self-determine the terms of service for the | basis of their communication. | | This seems like a _good_ outcome. Rather than arguing about | whether or not Facebook and Twitter should allow various | kinds of content, folks can choose the sorts of spaces to | which they 'd rather belong. And it's not like you have to | pick one and only one. It just seems like a non-problem. | | My feeling is that most people would not like to belong to | a space where open racism and other abhorrent views are | tolerated and encouraged. | | Those that do can have their fringe spaces, but they | shouldn't expect mainstream companies to help them do so. | cmsonger wrote: | > On the other hand, do we really want a handful of unelected | billionaires deciding what is acceptable speech - whether or | not we agree with them? We talk about net neutrality, but | shouldn't we apply the same standard to hosts like AWS? | | I think it's fine to be concerned about the principle while in | agreement on this use. Both things can be true. | | And FWIW, that's the state in which I find myself. The | president used Twitter to promote lies about the election that | were consumed by his followers who then used social media to | plan and execute violence in the US capitol. When that same | cycle threatened to repeat, these companies stepped in. Good | for them, what was their other choice? | | But appropriate action in this case does not mean that the | process and standards used are OK in the arbitrary case and | completely agree that lack of legislative standards is the | problem. The tech companies had not good choices here because | as a society we've not yet set any reasonable rules. | dchichkov wrote: | As per Wikipedia: "A majority of developed democracies have | laws that restrict hate speech, including Australia, Denmark, | France, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, | and the United Kingdom." | | The Unites States is not in that list. Hence it is more | vulnerable to problems associated with allowing hate speech | (i.e. incitement of violence by foreign-state actors, etc.). | | Companies that operate on the global markets tend to operate | with the standards that are acceptable globally. In | particular: "On 31 May 2016, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and | Twitter, jointly agreed to a European Union code of conduct | obligating them to review "[the] majority of valid | notifications for removal of illegal hate speech" posted on | their services within 24 hours." | | So in that particular case, influence of these companies | might be bringing United States closer to best practices | adopted in the majority of developed democracies. | umvi wrote: | > So in that particular case, influence of these companies | might be bringing United States closer to best practices | adopted in the majority of developed democracies. | | Best practices for maintaining a democracy or best | practices for maintaining social order? There's a | difference. You might argue that restricting hate speech is | actually a step away from democracy towards more government | control. | jbay808 wrote: | Personally, I want the government to set the rules on hate | speech, and private companies to follow them. | briandear wrote: | Did Pelosi use Twitter to promote lies about an election? Was | she banned? We're her tweets labeled/tagged/removed? | | Here you go: | | https://twitter.com/speakerpelosi/status/864522009048494080?. | .. | | And Hillary Clinton was, for years, claiming the election was | "stolen" from her. "Stolen" is her word, not mine. Is she not | responsible for whipping people into a frenzy over election | integrity? | | https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019. | .. | | 10 Democrat congresspeople objected to the electoral count in | 2016, including Sheila Jackson-Lee challenged the electoral | count in 2016. That they didn't get a Senator to also | challenge doesn't change their own opposition to the | election. Is Shiela Jackson-Lee deplatformed? Or course not. | She's a member of the congressional black caucus. She, an | violence-promoting Maxine Waters get a pass from the hand- | wringing of the tech and leftist "elites." | | https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/house-democrats- | trump... | | https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters- | trump-... | | People on the left are gigantic hypocrites. And liars. | Conveniently ascribing to Trump what they have been doing | since before November 2016. There are hundreds of not | thousands of examples of outright hypocrisy. | | Another example: violence committed against Senator Rand Paul | was cheered by Twitter users. Accounts weren't purged, nor | users banned en mass. The assassination attempt of | Congressman Scalise -- no punishment of Bernie Sanders' | campaign for inspiring hatred of Republicans that led to a | self proclaimed "Bernie Bro" from firing over 50 shots in an | attempt to kill Republicans. | | Where is the "community standards" enforcement around people | on Twitter that celebrate this actual violence against | elected officials? | | Hypocrites and phonies. That's what the tech "elites" and | leftist are. | smithza wrote: | This is a false equivalence. The clearest reason is that | zero of these cases resulted in sedition. This argument is | distracting, it is classic whataboutism. In no way is it | the case that moderating the app stores and shutting down | access to Parler or the President's Tweets equivalent to | condoning Clinton's or Jackson-Lee's or Sander's actions. I | recommend that you look at this particular case and draw | your conclusions about it without complaining about the | failure to respond the same way to very different | situations from other people years prior. | dionian wrote: | I'd like to see the evidence of how violent actions by | pro-DNC parties like BLM/antifa which occurred after | these words are any less tied to them than the actions | that happened after Trump's words. For empirical data's | sake. | germinalphrase wrote: | Other than the President giving an in person speech | before this exact group of people on the same morning as | the events took place in which he directed them to march | toward the Capitol building? | hartator wrote: | The capitol riot happened at the same time as his speech. | Not after. Devil is in the details. | germinalphrase wrote: | During and after, but mostly after. | | During: President begins speech at approximately noon. | Some protestors already amassed at Capitol. During | speech, crowd begins moving away from the speech | location, gather at the Capitol building, and breach | outer perimeter "bike fence". | | After: The President's speech ends at approximately | 1:10pm. Crowd is still outside the Capitol doors. | Congress begins certifying the vote. Protestors clash | with police, both sides spraying chemical irritants. | | Protesters continue to gather in numbers, surrounding the | Capitol building until breaching the exterior doors at | approximately 2:10pm. | | Other than the planting of pipe bombs at the | Capitol/RNC/DNC (which I haven't seen reporting on the | timing), all significant violence took place shortly | after the President's speech ended. | dionian wrote: | If they are lies then why can't they be refuted instead of | suppressed? | xxpor wrote: | This was my attitude too until about 3 years ago. But we're | dealing with a group of people who genuinely believe that | Trump is saving the world from a cabal of cannibalistic | pedophiles, and if Biden becomes president they'll all be | carted off to FEMA camps. How do you reason with someone | like that? | dragonwriter wrote: | > If they are lies then why can't they be refuted instead | of suppressed? | | It's harder to refute lies in the marketplace of ideas if | everyone with a megaphone is obligated to echo them. | Perhaps this wouldn't be true if people were perfectly | rational, but if people were perfectly rational they | wouldn't be believing and spreading lies in the first | place. | pixl97 wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law | | >Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry | principle, is an internet adage which emphasizes the | difficulty of debunking bullshit: "The amount of energy | needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger | than to produce it." | armagon wrote: | From an optics point of view, if it looked like they were | handling all users the same way, there'd be so much less of a | problem here. But right now, it is like selective law | enforcement -- action will be taken if we don't like you, | much more than whether you are deemed to be complying with | the terms of service. | | What they could've done is consistently enforced their rules | all the way along, to people of all political persuasions. | sanderjd wrote: | Is there evidence that there are other AWS customers with | easily discoverable content that incites violence, which | AWS is not working to have removed due to their terms of | service? | imwillofficial wrote: | I find the phrase "incite violence" to be a deceptive | term to use. A threat of violence is a very defined term. | Both legally and in common understanding. "Incites | violence" is vague and takes the responsibility away from | the one conducting violence, and places it on somebody | else who may or may not have been promoting violence. | It's usage is not defined legally or in common usage. | "Barney is the worst dinosaur" could be "inciting | violence" if somebody attacked the purple children's | mascot. | | Should we have to mute ourselves because crazy people | might use our words as justification for their madness? | Should others censor my opinions because in their | opinion, a third party might use my words for | justification for their madness? | germinalphrase wrote: | "Incitement" has absolutely been defined legally by the | US Supreme Court. | | See: Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969) | | https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test | | https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492 | imwillofficial wrote: | Great find, thanks! | | The usage I'm seeing does not fit the below defined | criteria: The speech is "directed to inciting or | producing imminent lawless action," AND The speech is | "likely to incite or produce such action." | sanderjd wrote: | I personally believe the posts Amazon asked to have taken | down meet the Brandenburg test, but note that Amazon is | not beholden to apply the legal test, though I do believe | it is a good starting point. Another reason to take | things down is "glorification of terrorism", which I | believe also applies to some of the posts. | bitstan wrote: | People rioting under the guise of "antifa" killed | innocent people in Portland. They even bombed a court | house. There's videos of "antifa" who tried to molotov | police but accidentally self-immolated instead. It's a | meme that the media will call these "peaceful protests". | | As someone who has no dog in the race, and hates violence | -- is this "fake news"?? Do these rabid maga idiots | actually have a point? | | If these protests were organized using FB or Twitter then | why aren't they also removed from the app stores? | | FB profited from radicalizing people using "engagement | metrics" and machine learning at a massive scale just to | sell ads. Now they want to wash their hands clean? | | These billionaires weren't democratically elected and | they shouldn't be shaping our democracy. | Daishiman wrote: | If there was a social network whose primary objective was | to promote these actions, then sure. | | As it happens, these actions are not coordinated en | masse, are neither promoted nor supported by even the | vast majority of people who are supposedly aligned | ideologically with is perpetrators, and are not organized | in spaces mostly devoted to that purpose. | didibus wrote: | If you're interested in having your own opinion, the | wikipedia page is a surprisingly good source of | information around the Portland protests I found: https:/ | /en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Por... | | I was actually in Seattle while similar protests occured, | and seeing things myself, I can say that the media did | mis-portray things greatly. 99% of the protestors were | completely peaceful and tens of thousands of people | rallied to protest day over day all peacefully. I was | surprised the media coverage didn't really cover those | much, it chose to focus on like the single instance of a | car lit on fire at 3am and those very minor instances, | sometimes the media photoshopped images too, where they'd | like superimpose a person holding a weapon in front of | the photo of the car on fire and things like that. And I | mean all media, left-wing, right-wing, small media, big | media, like they all did this, which I was very surprised | about. | | I felt pretty safe for the most part, when people weren't | protesting I'd still go and have coffee and order | croissant at my favourite places in the area that was | "occupied". | | Things got scary when "anti-protester" started showing | up, and suddenly everyone felt like people would show up | with guns so protesters felt they needed guns too, and | then there was this weird tension of like why we all have | guns? | | I was really surprised personally at the intensity of the | police response, especially in the beginning, and to me | it felt like the police really escalated tensions early | on which is what led to protesters starting to bring | fireworks and umbrellas to protect themselves from police | "croud control". Like if a single person in the croud | threw a single bottle that was enough for the police to | just start pepper spraying and tear gazing everyone. I | always wondered why the police doesn't just go after that | person that threw a bottle or broke a window, I'm not | sure what justified all this collateral damage from them. | There were kids and moms and even handicapped people at a | lot of those protests. | | Most striking is the way the police organises around | protesters, even though the protests are peaceful, they | flank the croud, and really position themselves like the | police and protesters are about to have a Braveheart | style face off. I don't understand why the police doesn't | spread themselves through the croud and instead help keep | the protest peaceful by deterring the few people who are | there to cause raucous. They should focus on the people | disrupting the protests, help protect others from them, | and arrest those. | | I was just really surprised by that, because if there was | a parade, the police would do what I'm describing, but | for a protest it seems they treat the protesters like a | huge threat and that makes the whole thing really tense | and makes people feel like the police is actually against | them. It didn't help that the protesters were there to | protest police brutality and they were welcomed by more | police brutality and confrontation. | | What I really want people to focus on here is this fact, | I'm from Montreal, where we take Hockey seriously, and | when the team Wins or Loses at the final, police cars are | lit on fire, windows are smashed, while people celebrate | the victory to the street or morn the loss of our hockey | team! | | Now in Seattle, you had 60000!! Yes I said Sixty | Thousand!!! PEOPLE marching an entire day completely | peacefully without a single broken window or fire: | https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/thousands- | march-in... when the population of the whole city is | 600000. That means 1 in 10 people participated in this | protest, and there were not even minor raucous! That's | the most peaceful assembly of such a large number of | people I've ever seen in my life. | | In Montreal, you have 1k people in the street it doesn't | matter why and there's more raucous then that. | | And these protests, they didn't just happen once, day | over day thousands of people over and over again, and | everytime only a handful of incidents, mostly in the late | evening or at night. Just do the math, 60k people, if 100 | of them broke windows, threw rocks and lit some things on | fire that would be 0.16% of the protestors. It be enough | for the media to have footage ad-nauseam and publish 100 | article about the "riots" and for police to bring out the | tear gas. But it also means that 99.84% of the protestors | were peaceful. Honestly, if it was for me, I think I'd | call these the most peaceful protest I've ever seen, I | think they should be given an award for how peaceful | these were given the amount of people and the | circumstances of how tense the topic was and how they | were received by the authorities. | | Disclosure: I'm just a bystander here, I didn't | participate in the protests myself, I only observed and | watched from the sidelines, and I knew people who did and | heard from them. So take my info for what it is. | akiselev wrote: | _> What I really want people to focus on here is this | fact, I 'm from Montreal, where we take Hockey seriously, | and when the team Wins or Loses at the final, police cars | are lit on fire, windows are smashed, while people | celebrate the victory to the street or morn the loss of | our hockey team!_ | | Happens in almost every city I've ever lived in. I've | seen far more violence at a Los Angeles Lakers or San | Francisco Giants riots after they win a championship than | at my local BLM protests. | sanderjd wrote: | Is this responsive to my comment? I am asking whether | there are examples of posts of the kind that Amazon asked | Parler to take down (clear incitement to violence / | glorification of terrorism), which another service hosted | on AWS has refused to take down when made aware of them? | I don't know whether there are or aren't, which is why | I'm asking. Your comment does not answer this question. | bitstan wrote: | If I link you to examples of people with blue checkmarks | calling for violence then what? Would you support twitter | becoming deplatformed? Is principled based reasoning | something you're capable of or even interested in? | sanderjd wrote: | Is Twitter hosted on AWS? Has AWS asked them to take | those down? | | I'm pretty confused by your last sentence. It seems like | a very out of order personal attack with no basis. | bitstan wrote: | You're continuing to demonstrate that if I answer your | questions it has no bearing on your ideology. | | Now you want to know if Twitter has an active account | with AWS. I could answer that. But does it matter? Nah. | That's what my last sentence meant. | umvi wrote: | > Good for them, what was their other choice? | | "do nothing", just like they did nothing when riots were | breaking out in BLM protests. | listless wrote: | I find myself in the exact same position. | | It's one thing if I say the election was stolen. I should not | be censored for saying that it was. My voice alone will not | sway anything. The problem is that so much power is | concentrated with the president that it ONLY takes his voice | to throw an entire country into chaos. That's too much power | with one person. | | So what am I saying? That I should have freedoms the | president should not? | coryfklein wrote: | > That's too much power with one person. | | Well, the USA could impeach and remove that person, or they | could reduce the power of his office. But so far the people | and their elected representatives have opted not to do | either of those things. | ruined wrote: | This same power has been used, on a less dramatic scale over | the past year and for a long time before now, to attack | police reform activists and disrupt organizing of the local | activist communities that exist to oppose this shit on the | ground. | | It's not really a situation of "this may be socially | chilling", it's been happening, and now it's just the first | time they contravened the president and made the news cycle. | | I don't really see any other decision they could have made | this past week. But if social media and capital in general | would stop kneecapping every political option but ineffective | liberalism and dogwhistle fascism, maybe the large numbers of | people who are angry and feel helpless would currently have a | pressure valve in a healthier direction. | | Three or four massive companies with incentives to suppress | the slightest disruption to profit, that hold unprecedented | surveillance power, and exercise detailed control over | individual and mass communication, that make apparently | ideological decisions about who is allowed to exist online, | are not compatible with a healthy society or any path that | could lead us out of this situation. | creato wrote: | "Opposing this shit on the ground" is why we're in this | nightmare in the first place. Imagine if there had been | counterprotestors "opposing this shit on the ground" at the | Capitol insurrection: we'd probably be pretty fucking close | to a civil war right now instead of near universal | condemnation of the extremist forces. | | If you have anything to do with "opposing this shit on the | ground", please fucking stop. You are accomplishing less | than nothing. | ruined wrote: | christ. i'm talking about doing actual organizing work. i | assure you nobody wants to put life on the line and throw | down for friggin congress | esoterica wrote: | The constitution prohibits the government from banning | political speech unless it will, e.g. incite imminent | violence. Keyword being imminent. Merely supporting violence | in general and non-specific terms is not illegal and cannot | be made illegal under the constitution, so the government | cannot decide to ban most of the types of speech that the | tech companies have chosen to ban (including Trump's recent | tweets that got him banned). | | If you think it is good that the recent bans took place then | you have no choice but to delegate decision making authority | to the industry, because the government is not | constitutionally permitted to demand that tech companies make | those decisions. | Grimm1 wrote: | My understanding is multiple posts on Parler did match our | incitement laws even up to planning events to come in the | next few weeks. | amanaplanacanal wrote: | I guess it's theoretically possible to set up an arm of | law enforcement whose sole job would be to monitor all | social media, along with a judicial division that could | stand at the ready to issue court orders for comment | takedowns. Maybe. | no-s wrote: | >>I guess it's theoretically possible to set up an arm of | law enforcement whose sole job would be to monitor all | social media, along with a judicial division that could | stand at the ready to issue court orders for comment | takedowns | | not theoretic (not pumping my post but amusing you would | comment simultaneously with my noticing this): | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25749923 | scruple wrote: | My understanding was that planning was happening on | multiple social media sites, notably Facebook. | sanderjd wrote: | I believe the distinction between the two (though note: I | am very willing to change this belief based on learning | details I don't currently know) is that Facebook tries to | remove such content (though it may not perfectly succeed) | whereas Parler actively refused to do so when AWS made | them aware and asked them to remove it. | Grimm1 wrote: | And the US government should bring a case against them. I | don't think you'll find me inconsistent in that thought, | I also argued an ISP yesterday that blocked FB is fully | within its rights to do so. | | Personally I think we need anti-trust action against a | lot of larger tech companies and second that they have | now opened the door on further regulation regarding | content moderation. I think getting rid of Section 230 | entirely would be a mistake but I won't be surprised to | see it amended in some form. | guscost wrote: | Never mind plain old lobbying, any legislator who | supports a crackdown on Facebook could be de-platformed. | These tech leviathans have captured the regulators in a | way that has never been seen before, and now they are | flaunting grotesque anti-competitive bullying in all of | our faces. Depending on the government to fix this mess | is not going to go well. | acomjean wrote: | This is one reason why amazon pulled the plug and the | violent posts were "rapidly growing". This kind of | customer is probably a huge headache to deal with, and | complaints were being sent/forwarded from amazon and | "some" were acted on. | | From Ars article: https://arstechnica.com/tech- | policy/2021/01/amazon-cuts-off-... | | Amazon said: "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." | MrMan wrote: | Libertarianism == billionaires subbing in for government. this | is what we get | dahfizz wrote: | Are you implying our government, which spends $6.6 trillion a | year and jails people for smoking weed, is libertarian in | nature? | kingaillas wrote: | I think your statement is the reverse of what was implied. | | Doesn't libertarianism posit a weak central government, | shedding all responsibilities (that can be shed) to the | free market, where competition ensures the best outcomes, | choices for all, etc? | | If that's true, the current situation of wealthy | corporations controlling various social media platforms | is... the desired outcome? | | The fact that competition is better in areas such as motor | vehicles, due to physical standards like roads that work | for everyone, lack of network effects, and so on, is beside | the point. It isn't the government's fault that Orkut and | MySpace didn't compete well against Facebook, or that | Parler entered a service contract with another corporation | that decided their TOS was violated. | | This will all be sorted out in the courts, interpreting | contracts which are the ultimate source of truth in the | libertarian world view. Fear nothing, justice will prevail. | If Parler was not in violation of the contract, they will | be compensated. If they were, too bad, they failed to | adhere to the contract they agreed to. They deserve to fail | and the NEXT competitor to take up the mantle will have | incrementally better information and chances to succeed. | brodouevencode wrote: | double plus good point comrade | MrMan wrote: | for me, libertarianism is a cancer. that doesnt make me a | communist, and I am definitely not. but hyper-individualism | is a literal poison to society. | brodouevencode wrote: | Can't you disagree with a philosophy without calling it a | cancer? It's this warping of language, 1984-style as in | the original comment, that is the biggest problem. | CrazyPyroLinux wrote: | It might not make you a communist, but I'd say definitely | a statist at least, of which there are both left and | right leaning flavors. | | If libertarianism and individualism are "a cancer" and | "literal poison" then then they are the most benign and | beneficial ones I've ever heard of. Of course any | ideology has a spectrum of interpretations and people | involved, but the core ideas of "don't hurt people and | don't take their stuff" (and maybe also "leave me alone") | seem pretty good to me. | Cabal wrote: | > Parler was a hate site, filled with conspiracy theories, | radicalization and racism | | Citation needed. Neither I nor my friends or acquaintances used | it for any of these things. Hell, I've hired people off of | Parler. | [deleted] | briandear wrote: | > Parler was a hate site, filled with conspiracy theories, | radicalization and racism | | And so is Facebook. And Twitter. And YouTube. | | And so what? If you don't like that stuff, you are free to not | use services that you don't like. | MrMan wrote: | Parler is not gone, I don't think, | dude_bro wrote: | I would agree - what's interesting to me is that taking | Parler off the mainstream platforms like Google and Apple app | stores though will probably only contribute to the | radicalization of its content. | | Essentially, these companies are probably just contributing | to the thing they are against. But I guess so long as their | hands aren't getting dirty they get to pretend like they're | doing the right thing and taking the moral high ground. | indigochill wrote: | > On the other hand, do we really want a handful of unelected | billionaires deciding what is acceptable speech - whether or | not we agree with them? We talk about net neutrality, but | shouldn't we apply the same standard to hosts like AWS? | | I think this question conflates "private company exercises | right to refuse service" and "private company decides what's | acceptable speech". The internet is not truly centralized and | no tech giant has a monopoly on speech. There remains plenty of | internet real estate to host ideas on that's not owned by tech | giants. I think it should remain the right of these companies | not to do business with organizations they choose not to and | that said organization should also have the right to find | another provider who will do business with them (or create | their own if need be). | | Is this not basically the same as porn hosting? There are hosts | who don't want to be associated with it, and there are hosts | who have no qualms taking porn money. | gpapilion wrote: | With a Parler, the dependence on aws, twilio, and other | solutions took them out of the iaas world and into paas and | saas. They depended on Amazon and other vendor solutions, so | migrating to anything else would be almost impossible. | aldarisbm wrote: | Yeah, but one could argue that is their fault that they | leaned into AWS vendor lock-in. They should've architected | cloud-agnostically | cm2187 wrote: | Google and Apple have a duopoly on mobile platforms, which | are the natural place for any communication app. If those two | act in concert you are facing a monopoly. There are only two | ways out. Competition or regulation. | | For AWS, I agree there are many alternatives, and in fact | what shocked me wasn't so much that they terminated their | contract with Parler, but the fact that they seem to have | done so with zero notice period. Which I find extremely | cavalier. | iaHN wrote: | Regulatory capture prevents competition. Money influencing | politics prevents regulation. | freeone3000 wrote: | What regulation prohibits you from making a phone OS, | even for an existing phone? Or your own android build? Or | your own _store_ on Android? | cm2187 wrote: | Up to a certain point. No amount of money would prevent | congress from toughening bank regulations after the | financial crisis. I also doubt that the republicans are | going to give big tech companies a pass when they come | back to power. | notahacker wrote: | You can't get an OnlyFans app in Google or Apple's app | stores either, much as I'm sure the company in question | would like the exposure of having one, because much of that | website's user generated content also falls foul of Google | and Apple's content policies. I don't understand what | appears to be a commonly held view that it was fine for the | appstore duopoly to deem content unsuitable for their store | until the content in question was calls to hang the vice | president and shitposts about Jews. | whimsicalism wrote: | Yeah, I think that both of those things should probably | have more public input when the players at hand | effectively control the entire market for smartphones in | the US. | | We have strong bill of rights restrictions on | governmental power because of the massive amount of power | held by the government. So having that power be | controlled by small numbers of entirely unaccountable | figures with more power than the government in certain | areas doesn't seem better at all? | notahacker wrote: | I think the main thing is if you want to make a case for | there being anti-trust or user freedom or dubious | moderation priorities issues with app stores, a campaign | centred around examples _other_ than Parler is much more | likely to win widespread support. | cjameskeller wrote: | Market share is low, but there certainly are other mobile | OS options out there. The fact that people in general don't | want to use them doesn't make Android & iOS a "duopoly". | thereddaikon wrote: | This line of thinking is similar to what happened in the deep | south before the civil rights movement. Private businesses | didn't want to serve African Americans and the excuse given | was its their right to refuse service. Except when all | private businesses colluded to deny service to African | Americans to enforce an informal segregation. | | Eventually the federal government came in and decided race | was a protected class. | | Obviously the problem isn't as simple as saying Google or | anyone else must allow certain groups to use their platforms. | Because that compels speech. Which the government also can't | do. | | Proper legal experts would have to craft it but I think the | limit should be somewhere around access and use of the | infrastructure. Domain registrars and hosts cannot | discriminate. However If Twitter doesn't want someone on | their platform I can't see why they shouldn't be allowed to | kick them. We just cant allow for those paltform hosts to | collude with the infrastructure providers to deplatform | others completely. | | And I can think of two reasons why from a legal standpoint. | 1: most of the internet infrastructure in the US was built | with public dollars. Even if its nominally owned by a private | ISP, they were paid by the government to build it. | Historically the courts have used government funds as a way | to enforce legal limits. | | 2: coordinated deplatforming like what happened with Parlor | looks an awful lot like it was an intentional hit to take out | a potential competitor to the current online status quo. That | should worry everyone really. | loceng wrote: | They aren't deciding what free speech is acceptable, they're | deciding what free speech is acceptable on their private | platforms. | | People are pretending like the platforms that deplatformed the | group inciting violence are the only platforms on the internet | that they could have used, they're not - they're not monopolies | in regards to that. They are however the most convenient | platforms to use because of various reasons, however we're not | talking about having a right to convenience - we're talking | about having the right to free speech, which everyone still | does in America and on the internet. | | Some advice: if you're going to have a mob boss and wannabe | tyrant like Trump and rally your followers on a platform, I'd | recommend using, depending on, technology layers of owners who | are aligned with you and okay with inciting of violence; Trump | goes on Fox News to say whatever the fuck he wants to millions | of people while saying he's being prevented from free speech - | come on now people, let's come back to reality and stop getting | sucked into the gaslighting. | exporectomy wrote: | Your definition of monopoly is wrong. Microsoft was judged by | the court to be abusing its monopoly power by bundling IE | with Windows and making it difficult to uninstall even though | users could still install competing browsers if they spent | the extra effort. | | There's no natural monopoly that you can't find an | alternative to if you're willing to spend enough effort. | intended wrote: | I'd go a step higher, the normative framework that informs our | legislation is old and needs to be examined. | | We support a market place of ideas because, it was argued that | bad ideas would eventually be trumped by better ideas - only by | examining bad ideas would we be able to move past them. | | Part of that remains true today, but it does not account for | the realities of mass communication. | | The model ends up painting a passive, solitary image of ideas. | | But ideas are neither passive, nor without context. Signal | without context is noise. | | Nor are brains neutral processors of information, they are | vulnerable to psyops, malformed arguments, pressure, ignorance | and emotion. | | I have read propaganda, I have seen arguments which sound | legitimate, but underlying it is xenophobia and hatred. | | I know for a fact, that Popper was right and you cannot | tolerate the intolerant. | | They do not come to discuss or exchange ideas. They come to use | your platform as an opportunity to gain followers. | | And they use the gaps in our norms to create space for | themselves. | | Counter speech is not a panacea, it require conditions to work. | If those conditions are not satisfied, the strategy fails. | | The norms behind modern speech need to account for these trade | offs. | | The status quo comes with the trade off that partisanship will | increase, more people _will_ be radicalized. | | This is the trade off, and people have to decide if they are | willing to enjoy this trade off. | claudiulodro wrote: | > On the other hand, do we really want a handful of unelected | billionaires deciding what is acceptable speech - whether or | not we agree with them? We talk about net neutrality, but | shouldn't we apply the same standard to hosts like AWS? | | Parler was co-founded by an unelected billionaire as a | "grassroots" way for the Mercers to push their ideology and | their version of "acceptable speech". I don't really have any | qualms with their power play getting shut down, and I don't | think other businesses should be forced to support it. | cmiles74 wrote: | In my opinion, things are working as expected. The US federal | and state level governments are not supposed to regulate | speech, per the US Constitution. In this case they are not | regulating speech. | | Private companies are regulating speech (in their applications, | through their services and websites, etc.) as they are free to | do under the US Constitution. While there may be a market for | the speech Parler promotes and amplifies that market is not | sufficiently large (in the opinion of these companies) to | offset possible bad public relations or the loss of other | customers. | | I don't think there's any place for legislation that forces | private companies to take a loss in this manner. It's clearly | anti-free market and definitely anti-free speech, forcing | Amazon to associate with speech they feel might harm the | companies financial outlook. | | Also, is it necessary? There are many BitTorrent tracker sites | that are treated as illegal in the US and are still available. | If Parler was really dedicated to keeping their website running | they could surely do so. Maybe they won't have applications in | the Apple App Store but that's not a right, is it? You have to | have product that Apple feels helps the overall goal of their | App Store, which is to make money for Apple. | rootsudo wrote: | "Private companies are regulating speech (in their | applications, through their services and websites, etc.) as | they are free to do under the US Constitution. " | | Technically, there is no barrier that restricts a corporation | from granting free space, so it isn't "free" to do so, moreso | that it was not addressed because at the time of the framing | of the constitution, the bigger dissenters of free speech | were government, and religion, backed by government (or being | the government.) | cmiles74 wrote: | I disagree that this was an oversight of the of the US | Constitution. Newspapers and books were both things when | the US Constitution was written and, in all the years | since, we haven't seen any amendments that would force a | newspaper to print articles or letters that might cost them | customers. Publishers are not forced to publish books that | they feel might tarnish or otherwise harm their brands. | | Indeed, it's my position that such laws would in fact be | infringing on the free speech of those private companies. | In addition they might cost those companies money, making | these hypothetical laws also anti-free market. | vageli wrote: | While not an amendment, there certainly have been | provisions to compel entities from providing a forum for | sides they don't want to promote. [0] See also the now- | repealed fairness doctrine. [1] | | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule [1]: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine | [deleted] | mcguire wrote: | I suspect the bottom line is that general anonymity on the | internet needs to be discarded. | | No, wait, hear me out. | | No moderation isn't acceptable. Really. (If someone wants to | make a counter-assertion, I merely point to this site.) | | Non-transparent, corporate moderation doesn't seem palatable to | anyone. There are just too many pitfalls. | | Independent moderation falls apart when you consider that | different fora have different moderation requirements. (A forum | for Cinderblock the obese cat is going to be very different | from any kind of political or technical site.) | | The best case seems to me to be case-by-case, transparent | moderation with precedents, similar to common law. And | ultimately, I expect transparent moderation to, in the extreme, | go to the court system, so that's not necessarily a bad | starting point. | | Unfortunately, _that_ falls apart when large numbers of | participants are (including, say, moderators) are not speaking | in good faith. I see two possible ideas to address that: First, | to tie accounts to physical identities (but not necessarily | disallowing the account to be effectively anonymous), to cut | the number of bots, multiple accounts, etc. Second, to attach | an account to a user 's reputation (which does break | anonymity). The results I see are to cut down on the volume of | _crap_ while ensuring users have skin in the game (with a side | order of making legal action against stalking, harassment, and | threats). | | But what about those situations that _require_ anonymity? Most | of those already have legal and social protections: | psychological, religious, and legal counseling, for example. I | would support anonymity for those fora, which places | responsibility for moderation on the fora, of course, as well | as meaning that the moderation cannot be transparent. | | One area does require special handling: whistleblowing. It does | require anonymity, and does not have any current legal or | social protections. _That needs to be fixed._ | | But anyway, as a general rule, the default for social media | should not support anonymity. _The only way to free providers | like Facebook, Reddit, this site, or AWS from responsibility | for what is posted there is to_ place that responsibility on | the actual posters _---having no responsibility doesn 't work, | and giving that power to the discretion of the owner of the | provider isn't acceptable._ | | There are some objections that I think I can answer, but this | comment is getting too long for me, so I'll wait until anyone | cares. | | And no, the irony of Parler's requirement of photo-ids and | (allegedly) SSNs isn't lost on me. | ball_of_lint wrote: | This is exactly the point that the article misses. It's not | contradictory to hold the views that "This was the right | decision" and "This decision shouldn't have been up to private | companies". | | While there are significant improvements that could be made to | our laws, the most significant failure here is one of | enforcement. When Republican senators chose not to hear | witnesses during the impeachment trial they took a significant | step towards making Donald Trump a despot and legitimizing the | alt-right. The recent strife is a direct consequence. | robertlagrant wrote: | Come on. People keep citing "key events" that led to this. | It's silly. The rioters would've not rioted if more witnesses | had been heard? You think they even are aware of the trial | proceedings? | MajorBee wrote: | If these witnesses _were_ presented and heard, leading to | (long shot maybe, but still) a _conviction_ by the Senate | of Trump, of course, things would have been very different | today. | | You can argue that the violent events of last week would | have simply taken place early last year, but at least it | might not have threatened peaceful transfer of power after | the elections. | Grimm1 wrote: | Parler may sue to have their site reinstated, which they are, I | don't see an issue here. If these companies were wrong to take | them down the courts will force these companies to reverse it. | I don't think they will though because multiple posts, comments | etc on Parler apparently match the criteria for incitement | which Parler insufficiently moderated and is not covered by 1st | Amendment rights. | flowerlad wrote: | > _do we really want a handful of unelected billionaires | deciding what is acceptable speech_ | | Historically newspapers, television and radio have decided what | is acceptable to be published through their media. There is no | reason modern internet-based media should be any different. | | On the internet everything can appear equally legitimate. | Breitbart looks as legit as the BBC. Sacha Baron Cohen | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM | | Excerpts: | | Voltaire was right when he said "Those who can make you believe | absurdities can make you commit atrocities." And social media | lets authoritarians push absurdities to millions of people. | President Trump using Twitter has spread conspiracy theories | more than 1700 times to his 67 million followers. | | Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Sadly There will | always be racists, misogynists, anti-Semites, and child | abusers. We should not be giving bigots and pedophiles a free | platform to amplify their views and target their victims. | | Zuckerberg says people should decide what's credible, not tech | companies. When 2/3rds of millennials have not heard of | Auschwitz how are they supposed to know what's true? There is | such a thing as objective truth. Facts do exist. | yandrypozo wrote: | Finally someone gets it: "No authoritarians believe they are | authoritarians." | frazras wrote: | Is it ok to say that anything I can put on a placard and walk | around a city displaying without getting arrested or breaking any | law should be considered acceptable free speech on the internet? | Just trying to separate the medium from the message. | DarknessFalls wrote: | This is so stupid. Silicon Valley is not a company or a | federation, so the charge of "monopolistic force" is false. It's | just a hub of innovation. Parler is a terrorist network. | [deleted] | deeeeplearning wrote: | The US is being destroyed by the Paradox of Tolerance and | Putin/Xi could not be happier. What better possible outcome, | short of an actual Civil War, could there be to prove to their | people that Democracy is a flawed ideology? | SpaceL10n wrote: | This is just a good ole' fashioned reactionary claw back. It's | not a show of force. I feel bad for Parler, they got the short | end of the stick. But can't have your cake and eat it too. | MrMan wrote: | anti trust action is needed against a few big tech firms, but | this article for some reason frightens me. I dont understand the | perspective and there seem to be contradictory undercurrents. I | dont use any social network apps except occasionally browsing my | couple of dozen friends feeds on my private Instagram account. I | know Insta is not good, but I dont feel particularly threatened | by it, since no discussion is ocurring (on my feed), just | pictures and videos of music and places people have been, meals | they have cooked. | | I don't really care if Amazon crushes Parler. I also don't find | back-doors, infiltration and R&D relationships with the | government alarming or surprising. What matters to me is whether | the government itself is corrupt. | | I am a globalist and I do hope for more, not less integration | between trade blocs. I think it would be beneficial to avoid the | supply chain panic that underlies the extreme pursuit of labor | cost arbitrage, but not in pursuit of national, but rather | regional, balance of power and trade. | | Surveillance is not going away. We cannot fight it. What can be | combated is the willingness to harm others and the tendency to | view others as separate from ourselves and as a danger to our | interests. | | But these tech firms are not yet absolute monopolies - Amazon, | Google, Facebook, all display in my opinion anti-competitive and | in some cases anti-consumer behaviour, but I think a new | framework is needed to quantify harm in tech antitrust | regulation. | | I think Facebook is the most egregious offender because, as I | have hyperbolically stated before, have constructed what amounds | to a genocide machine. So while they are not "anti-consumer" in | terms of price, they are anti-peace and stability of the system | which hurts all of us. They disrupt the political process and not | in a fun way. | | Greenwald seems to be inviting pretty draconian anti-trust | action, which would certainly be a bit controversial because some | libertarians might not like it - ideologically the founders of | Parler might be among them. On the other hand he seems to be | stroking Parler as being some kind of underdog that is less bad | somehow than other social networks. In my view Parler is only | different in scale. | | Again, Greenwald makes me very uneasy in this article because he | comes out hard against "monopoly" but whose side is he on? I feel | weird that I agree on paper that antitrust action is needed, but | his article feels bought and paid for in some way. | aeturnum wrote: | The stupidest possible take on things always seems to rise to the | top of social media. | | First, I fully agree that the entire mobile ecosystem is walled- | garden first. That should be addressed to a greater degree than | sideloading apps on android. Second, the idea that this is | 'monopolistic' seems deeply silly. Parler isn't offline because | Amazon, the only provider of web services, told them to get off | the internet. It's offline because Amazon and most of their | specialized service providers (twilio, etc) kicked them off _as | well as_ all of those service providers ' competitors. This is | not an example of monopolistic power. It's an example of an | entire industry choosing to reject a company they find odious. | This is very similar to what happened with Stormfront some years | ago[1]. | | Still, this is troubling. I feel like it's reasonable to see | Parler as acting in bad faith. It seems to me like they knowingly | fostered an environment that would lead to militants using the | service to plan attacks. I think they protest too much. | | I also think that hosting truly "free" speech in an ethical way | is enormously, obviously difficult. Threats are genuinely hard to | evaluate and must be taken seriously. Mass communication has been | at the center of all the modern genocides (and early forms of | communication were key to the older ones). I think _this_ is the | discussion we should be having - what is the "right" way to | create a space where people are save to speak? How could Parler | have existed to allow people to speak their minds _while_ | preventing the platform from providing aid to violent hate | groups? I suspect it 's impossible to allow people to speak | freely about their belief that other people are not human without | fomenting violence but it's clear that not everyone agrees with | that and I think we need to talk about it. | | P.s. Quite sad to see that Greenwald has descended into red-faced | sputtering grievance-listing. I agree that the moral case for | shutting down Parler and shutting down Facebook is the same. I | think both should be shut down for fomenting and planning | violence. We can reopen both of them when we figure out how to | more effectively stop their use in violence. I didn't even need | ten paragraphs to say it. | | [1] https://slate.com/technology/2017/08/stormfront-has-been- | kic... | seventytwo wrote: | There's absolutely nothing "monopolistic" about any of this. | | Greenwald is a conspiratorial loon. | throwaway111z wrote: | It feels like the tech giants are dipping their toes into | partisan politics and they don't like the message more than the | tactics. | | For example, if BLM had occupied the capital does anyone think | that BLM would have been removed from the big tech platforms | within two days or the response would be remotely similar? | Although BLM is a much better cause, there were fringe elements | that advocated violence for change that received no widespread | tech backlash. Furthermore, there were BLM protests for months in | nearly every state capital and Seattle had an occupied portion | for weeks with no similar response. | | Sure, perhaps in this case BLM is such a better cause than | Trump's election shenanigans. However, couldn't someone on the | center or right could see this as a problematic precedent? Today | it's clear cut, but in the future it could be 'agree with the | left or be 'cancelled''? | dumpsterdiver wrote: | I have a suggestion to keep these conversations from spiraling | into pedantry: let's stop using the phrase "free speech" when | referring to these companies (I'm going to use it a few more | times here though, for illustration), and instead be descriptive | and refer to "a group of people having their ideas and voices | silenced at scale." Whether we agree with the people being | silenced or not, that's what this is really about, right? | | We don't need names to know what something is. A young scientist | might think an elderly aboriginal person foolish because the | elder has never heard of a "star", but that doesn't mean the | elder hasn't seen the sun rise every day of their life. | | My point is that we should not be discounting opinions because | someone used the wrong word. We're smart enough to read between | the lines and see the crux of what is bothering someone. Free | speech, as an ideal, doesn't have to refer to any law, but to | avoid spiraling into pedantry, I would suggest that we all be | more descriptive during the course of these conversations. | colechristensen wrote: | Was it really monopolistic? | | server hosting isn't a monopoly, everyone has access to the web | on their phone even when app stores drop apps | | they may have had problems getting managed services on the big | providers but there are many many other options | piercebot wrote: | Silicon Valley does not control the Internet though. I get that | headlines like this make for good clickbait, but it's not like | Parler can no longer exist on the Internet. | | Parler can go buy some servers, hook them up to the internet, and | come back online. | kats wrote: | If Apple and Google can do whatever they want on their platform | (where they have a combined 99.8% market share in the US), then | what's to stop AT&T/Verizon/CenturyLink/Comcast from doing | whatever they want on _their_ platform, the internet? | ip26 wrote: | The carrier who provides your physical location service is more | comparable to a utility or the postal service than are Apple or | Google. | kats wrote: | Ok, but I assume (could be wrong) that's because of the | difficulty of creating your own water/sewage/electric | service. But isn't it comparably difficult to create your own | app store or payment processor? | ip26 wrote: | It's not just difficulty- it's really not a good thing for | anybody if you have three different sewers and four | different electrical service lines running to your house. | It's expensive, wasteful, a mess, and can even degrade | quality of service. | | But a variety of app stores or payment processors | functioning over a common carrier (ISP, USPS) is a good | thing. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | In the early 1990s, if you wanted to have an online presence you | needed to buy hardware, connect it to the internet and run some | software on it. | | If Parler had done this, the ways they could have been | "destroyed" would have been: 1. refusal to | provide DNS for their address 2. refusal to certify an SSL | certificate (not absolutely required but more than just a detail | in 2021) 3. refusal by an ISP to carry their bits | | I believe that even the progressive end of the tech community | would have been extremely negative about any company that did any | of these 3 things. I also think its very unlikely that any of | them would have happened, though the Gab case provides some | evidence to the contrary. | | Instead, Parler followed the unfortunate dumbification of online | presence over the last 20-30 years, and instead of doing the | above, contracted with a large corporation to take care of things | for them. The large corporation decided they didn't want to do | that anymore, and Parler lost its online presence. | | Parler is not exactly unique in having made this choice. But | perhaps the consequence of the choice they made might convince | more people/organizations/corporations to think a bit more | clearly about the type of hosting infrastructure they really | want/need. If Parler had followed the self-hosted pathway, I | think it is extremely unlikely (though sure, not impossible) that | they would be offline at this point. | inkeddeveloper wrote: | Did you just refer to using global cloud providers as | "dumbification of online presence?" I'm not even sure how one | comes up with that. | curiousllama wrote: | REAL programmers use a magnetized needle and a steady hand | | https://xkcd.com/378/ | dgellow wrote: | DNS can clearly be a target, same for TLS certificates. | zionic wrote: | >I believe that even the progressive end of the tech community | would have been extremely negative about any company that did | any of these 3 things | | Strongly disagree. The comments here would be overwhelmingly in | support with crap like "you can't force a private company to | give you a certificate!" | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Lets Encrypt has (AFAIK) no TOS that would provide any basis | to revoke a certificate. | cthor wrote: | You also need DDoS protection. Cloudflare has booted people off | for naughty speech before and got away with it, so no reason to | expect anyone else in the game wouldn't. | curiousllama wrote: | Was that when the CEO penned a letter that started "I kicked | X off the internet because I was in a bad mood this | morning"?IIRC, even they felt this power was a bad thing at | the time, even if the instance of it was ok | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Booted people from its hosting services, or booted people | from their DNS service? These are not the same. | tpmx wrote: | Could have, should have. This isn't material to the discussion | at hand. (It is however good advice in general.) | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | It is material to any discussion of whether or not AWS, | Amazon or Silicon Valley or corporations in general have | "Monopolistic Force" abilities in this area. | Gollapalli wrote: | Even DNS services are kicking people off. AR15, a widely | trafficked gun forum with an e-commerce store was just kicked | off of GoDaddy. | | https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/amazon-godaddy-boots... | alacombe wrote: | > AR15, a widely trafficked gun forum | | Given the amount of time it's been openly operating, if there | was anything done related to gun trafficking, the ATF would | have shut it down long ago. | | Just because a site has a LEGAL private sales section and you | don't agree with it doesn't mean it's "trafficking". | boston_clone wrote: | it may have simply been an opportunity for a better choice | of words. in this case, i think they meant trafficked as in | heavily visited. | Gollapalli wrote: | I meant site traffic, yes. Thank you for clarifying. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | I don't the know the details of that case (and I don't expect | the WE reporter does either). It seems as if GoDaddy refused | to continue _hosting_ the site. That 's quite different from | providing just DNS for a server owned and administered by the | organization. | robocat wrote: | From linked article: "As a result, we[=godaddy] informed | the site yesterday that they have 24 hours to move the | domain to another registrar, as they have violated our | terms of service" i.e. domain, not hosting. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Their registrar is and was epik.com, starting in 1997 | according to whois records. | | I can't find an obvious link between godaddy and epik | (though one may exist). | | Their current DNS service is provided by ... AWS :) | | I'm not convinced that the quote from godaddy is | technically informative here, though using the word | "registrar" would seem to be more indicative of something | other than hosting. | Synaesthesia wrote: | The left has been censored and deleted enough times from social | media and regular media, that this is a cause for concern. Any | laws which restruc freedom of speech could come back to haunt us. | FabHK wrote: | While I generally disagree with Greenwald, he makes a good point | here: | | > So why did Democratic politicians and journalists focus on | Parler rather than Facebook and YouTube? Why did Amazon, Google | and Apple make a flamboyant showing of removing Parler from the | internet while leaving much larger platforms with far more | extremism and advocacy of violence flowing on a daily basis? | watwut wrote: | Because those repeatedly and often and again and again censor | extremist content. | MrMan wrote: | "while leaving much larger platforms with far more extremism | and advocacy of violence flowing on a daily basis" | | I am not sure this is true? The point could have been made | without resort to hyperbole stretching into disingenuousness. | What about that other platform should not be the issue - social | network apps/sites are all subject to and propagate abuse. | ppeetteerr wrote: | Democratic politicians have been hounding Facebook and YouTube | since 2016. | | Perhaps you mean why did we focus so much of our efforts on a | single website? In this very moment, it's because this website | was used to coordinate the efforts of a national group of | potential terrorists. The pot boiled hard and fast. | pas wrote: | Charlottesville was a proving ground. Trump's singing to | white nationalists, violence against "the other side", | casualti(es). | | In this particular case Trump directly ordered the attack. | (At first I put quotes on order and attack, but alas no | quotes needed, it's what it is.) But he has been flaring | these flames since ... that fucking birth certificate dog | whistle. | ppeetteerr wrote: | It's surprising Twitter let him keep his account this long. | SV is not _that_ powerful. | ashtonkem wrote: | Greenwald's thing is totally ignoring what his ideological | opponents do, and then whine about them not doing what he | thinks they should have done. | | The idea that Democrats have been easy and kind on Twitter | and FB is so disconnected with reality it's actually kind of | funny. | pas wrote: | The question is, was this an exception, or they changed policy, | and will they start to enforce similar rules with regards to | those bigger platforms/groups? | jonahrd wrote: | The reason Parler is popular in the first place is because | YouTube and Facebook are no longer viable options for this kind | of hate speech. That fight already concluded. | awillen wrote: | No, this is not a good point. Parler is a one-purpose app that | existed solely (and was moderated by its own employees) to | foment a chamber of hateful, violent rhetoric. Facebook and | YouTube are used for many things by many people. Also Facebook | and YouTube remove those kinds of content (even if they don't | do a great job of it, they spend a whole lot of money employing | a lot of people to get rid of it). Parler moderators removed | those people who disagreed with the violent MAGA rhetoric. | They're just not comparable, and pretending they are is | ridiculous. | txsoftwaredev wrote: | I signed up and used Parler and I was never hateful or | violent. Its purpose was not that but to have a place where | conservative voices (or anyone for that matter) could speak | freely without the risk of being silenced by Twitter, | Facebook etc. because your views didn't align with the left. | bluedays wrote: | I use to have an immense respect for Glen Greenwald and follow | his writing regularly, but Greenwald's tone has changed | drastically recently. I'm not sure why, but he seems to have a | rather myopic view of the left. It's a sudden departure from the | writing he was known for during the days of The Intercept and | Salon.com. I am honestly even starting to question the honesty of | his writing, even. | | An example for this article: | | > including a refusal to aggregate user data in order to monetize | them to advertisers or algorithmically evaluate their interests | in order to promote content or products to them. | | He says this but fails to mention that the same people who were | the founders of Cambridge Analytica also were the founder of | Parler | | https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201116/01141545710/what-... | | Furthermore there seems to be little, if any, mention of the fact | that the Mercers who were major funders for the Trump | organization were also using the data obtained from Cambridge | Analytica to target political advertising. | | https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/595338116/what-did-cambridge-... | | I know this is beyond the scope of the article that Greenwald was | writing but having read his writing for _years_ I have to wonder | why it wasn 't mentioned? It's not something that would typical | go without mention in writing from earlier in his career. | | I am not one to typically hedge on the side of removing "free | speech" from people, but Parler represented a clear and present | threat to American democracy. The ties to the Trump organization | and it's funders were innumerable. Why does Greenwald have an | agenda to foment discord regarding this? His writing lately, the | twitter screeds that he has gone on against the left, and his | staunch denial of the Russian interference in the 2016 election | makes me question if he hasn't been compromised in some way. | matt-attack wrote: | Curious if you feel torn supporting the US highway | infrastructure? It can clearly be used for to traffic drugs, | humans, blackmarket weapons, etc. It can be used to flee justice, | evade police, abets vehicular manslaughter, etc. The list goes on | and on. Is it even controversial to support the highway system as | is? Do we loose sleep over it? | | I feel like we've all been a bit brainwashed by the government in | our notion that "free speech" must have limits. I very much doubt | that that is true. I think the _speech_ part should always be | 100% free. Of course any crimes that derive from it are and will | always been fully enforceable. I just question whether or not the | _speech itself_ should be viewed as illegal, or something that | should be regulated. | | Obviously all of the insidious planning and hatred that | presumably occurred on Parler is abhorrent. I think I can hate | all of those things without believing that the site should be | censored. | tryauuum wrote: | Your comment could be so much better without the highway | analogy. Now there are people expanding it, indulging in | thoughts like "wouldn't the digital equivalent of Toyota be | XYZ...". | | I think comparisons suck, because people obviously come up with | comparisons with the things that prove their point of view, | while ignoring all other comparisons. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | You can't post pirated content or child porn online - because | you're either directly engaging in or enabling criminal | behavior. | | If you're promoting armed, violent protests and insurrection - | that is also a crime. | | And sure, this is happening to a small degree on Twitter and FB | - but they make some attempts to stop it, and it's not the main | value proposition of the platforms. | | The problem with Parler is that this was always where it was | headed. It was built to serve people who would use it for this, | and a significant portion of the content created and consumed | was about this. | | There is also legitimate content available on Kick Ass | Torrents. But the majority of the consumption is for things | that are illegal in the US. So it gets the same treatment as | Parler. | cmiles74 wrote: | And, let's note that torrent sites are still widely | available. Most torrent sites are simply better constructed | for their niche than Parler was. | coryfklein wrote: | > If you're promoting armed, violent protests and | insurrection - that is also a crime. | | You are conflating Parler with it's users | | > this is happening to a small degree on Twitter and FB - but | they make some attempts to stop it | | From the article: | | > And contrary to what many have been led to believe, | Parler's Terms of Service includes a ban on explicit advocacy | of violence, and they employ a team of paid, trained | moderators who delete such postings. Those deletions do not | happen perfectly or instantaneously -- which is why one can | find postings that violate those rules -- but the same is | true of every major Silicon Valley platform. | fphhotchips wrote: | You've made some good arguments throughout this thread, but | this one in particular is disingenuous. You can't market | yourself to people that were deplatformed specifically for | inciting violence and then credibly mock surprise when | those people begin inciting violence on your platform. By | the time the limited number of moderators get around to | deleting or hiding posts the damage is done, and everybody | knows it. | coryfklein wrote: | A few things: | | 1. You either are unaware of the meaning of the word | "disingenuous", or you know my own intentions better than | I do. | | 2. Did Parler express suprise that some of its users | attempted to (and in some cases succeeded) incite | violence on their platform? | | 3. Again your tendency towards superlative undermines the | discussion, but " _everybody_ knows it " and "the damage | has been done"? This is a very strong statement indeed, | claiming that you have knowledge that Parler's moderation | has been so ineffectual that every user on their platform | is able to view all inciting content before it is taken | down. | deedree wrote: | In your comparison it's about what CAN be done with the | highway. For the comparison to hold true it's more like we let | them knowingly drive there while we're 100% aware where they | are at that moment. So we could have acted on it but didn't and | watched them do it. | | Threats, slander and misinformation where never part of free | speech and never will be. Invoking "free speech" here is | disingenuous. | | To go back to your comparison, if Parler - or anything similar | - was like the highway we wouldn't know about what was going | on. But we do, and it's inciting violence so it's basic human | decency to stop it. Even apart from anything that a government | would say. I don't get it, why are we still talking about this | on HN. | vb6sp6 wrote: | Drug Lords in Mexico build roads to help them traffic narcotics | and some law abiding people have access to them. | | The US built roads to enable commerce and some law breaking | people have access to them. | | Intent matters | andrewljohnson wrote: | If there were a US highway that was used primarily or | disproportionately for crime, then the government would take | some actions. | | Examples of this in practice are the checkpoint around El Paso | in West Texas that checks for all sorts of contraband. And the | agriculture checkpoint on Highway 80 between California and | Nevada. | | In this analogy, Parler seems more like a single road used for | lots of crime, while social media overall is the highway | network that is more free. | kennywinker wrote: | I don't want to nitpick, but i've been thru the checkpoint | east of el paso many times. It's deeply racist. Here is how | every interaction i've had goes: | | Checkpoint cop, looks at people in vehicle, sees they are all | white, bored sounding asks "is everyone an american citizen?" | | Driver: "no, some of us are american and some are canadian." | | Checkpoint cop, confused: "uhhh that's alright, proceed" | | There purpose is supposedly to check for illegal cross border | activity in the US and yet a car full of canadians doesn't | even blip their radar because it's not actually about | nationality it's about race. | | Which is all to say that i believe your comment about that | checkpoint being about contraband glosses over the real | motivations. In the dozens of times i've been thru there all | i've ever been asked about is citizenship, and it's never | mattered what the answer is because i am white. | newfriend wrote: | No, it's not. | | There aren't millions of Canadian citizens crossing the US- | Mexico border illegally every year. There aren't tens of | millions of Canadian citizens living illegally in the US. | | They are trying to stop the 99.999% of illegal aliens who | are from Mexico and Central America from crossing the | border, not the random Canadian who is basically guaranteed | to be entering legally. | kennywinker wrote: | Because it's a car full of white people, the border | patrol and you assume that they're "very likely to be | entering legally". There is a similar ratio of canadians | legally and "illegally" living in the states as there are | latinos living legally and "illegally". But that aside, a | car full of white people definitely gets treated | differently at that checkpoint than a car full of latinos | - and nobody EVER asked about "contraband" as originally | suggested | Jochim wrote: | > Curious if you feel torn supporting the US highway | infrastructure? It can clearly be used for to traffic drugs, | humans, blackmarket weapons, etc. It can be used to flee | justice, evade police, abets vehicular manslaughter, etc. The | list goes on and on. Is it even controversial to support the | highway system as is? Do we loose sleep over it? | | The people responsible for those highways spend a lot of money | preventing them being used for drug trafficking, blackmarket | weapons etc. Parler actively refused to moderate right wing | hate speech. | | > Obviously all of the insidious planning and hatred that | presumably occurred on Parler is abhorrent. I think I can hate | all of those things without believing that the site should be | censored. | | I have to ask, where then do you want the line to be drawn? How | detailed does the plan have to be before it's nipped in the | bud? | CyanLite2 wrote: | I'm perfectly fine with Parler being an outlet for conspiracy | theories and such. Many people made good money off of Parler, | and Parler made good money grifting off of delusional folks. | All legal. Crazy? Probably. But definitely within the realm of | "free speech". | | The line gets drawn when a platform is used as a base of | coordination to overthrow a legitimately elected government and | threaten violence against people. Not sure why that's so hard | to grasp. | triceratops wrote: | > Curious if you feel torn supporting the US highway | infrastructure? | | Are you equating social media with the US highway | infrastructure? I have to disagree with you in that case. The | Internet and ISPs are like the US highway infrastructure. | Social media is like demanding your stuff be carried by a | particular truck company. | | If you want social media to be public infrastructure, maybe the | government should start a social media company. | flowerlad wrote: | 28% of Americans believe that Bill Gates wants to use vaccines | to implant microchips in people - with the figure rising to 44% | among Republicans. [1] | | If a significant chunk of the population hesitates to get | vaccines then it has consequences for all of us, regardless of | our beliefs. Lies and misinformation spread through social | media should be kept in check by patrolling, just like our | highways are patrolled. | | [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/52847648 | newacct583 wrote: | > I feel like we've all been a bit brainwashed by the | government in our notion that "free speech" must have limits. I | very much doubt that that is true. | | Then why are you posting that on a heavily-moderated discussion | forum and not 8kun? | uncoder0 wrote: | Well funny you mention 8kun specifically it is down at the | time of your comment. I find HN to be a good balance of | moderation and open discussion. Like all platforms it has | it's biases but, people are relatively civil and open to | discussion which is commendable in the current climate of | online discussion. | Krollifi wrote: | Some of the reasons HN is civil is that it covers a niche | area and quickly flags things that are highly contraversial | such as politics and race relations. | | I just checked and 8kun.top is up. | juskrey wrote: | Traffickers, when using the highway, do not make HQs at major | intersections and rest zones and do multiply at will there. And | if they do, they got banned for some time. | uncoder0 wrote: | >"Obviously all of the insidious planning and hatred that | _presumably occurred on Parler_ is abhorrent. I think I can | hate all of those things without believing that the site should | be censored. " | | I have yet to see any evidence that the capitol protest was | planned primarily on Parler. I have seen plenty of evidence | that it was planned primarily on Facebook (that has since been | deleted/hidden by Facebook). You'd think if the goal was to | punish or curtail such events Facebook would be getting at | least similar treatment as Parler. | smithza wrote: | Difference being that Facebook moderates content. This was | the Apple complaint against Parler. Parler has publicly | touted itself as the 4chan/8chan of social media apps. It is | more that the culture of Parler is being rejected by the App | Store gate keepers and not so much the vehicle enabling it. | eightysixfour wrote: | Parler absolutely moderated content - many went on and | posted something left leaning and had their content quickly | removed. It was moderated by ideology instead of by any | attempt at "decency" though. | smithza wrote: | I haven't heard this. Can you point to examples of this? | eightysixfour wrote: | TechDirt ran an article on it: https://www.techdirt.com/a | rticles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr... | | There are plenty of individuals claiming they were banned | for posting left content or disagreeing with right wing | content. Hard to know how much is trolling or not, but I | think that's kind of the point. If it is the home of free | speech, who is Parler to determine their intent? | intended wrote: | it's standard practice for many certain political forums, | If you don't espouse the same beliefs, you will get | banned. | | Their counter argument is that if you bring up | conservative view points, the liberal echo chambers ban | you. So they should be able to do it in their free speech | spaces. | | This also unfortunately hides the fact that hate speech, | dog whistles, saying that COVID is a hoax, pushing for | falsehoods and getting upset about not being able to do | so, is why you get banned. | at-fates-hands wrote: | > This also unfortunately hides the fact that hate | speech, dog whistles, saying that COVID is a hoax, | pushing for falsehoods and getting upset about not being | able to do so, is why you get banned. | | I fail to see how this any different from any other | social media site?? | | Again, NOTHING that Parler did is any different from any | other social media platform that is a total cess pool of | what you just described. The difference is, the speech | was predominantly conservative in nature. Which leads me | to believe the decisions to remove the app were purely a | political decision - which is an incredibly dangerous | precedent to start. | _whiteCaps_ wrote: | https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as | -pr... | | https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/11/parler-safe- | space-fo... | | > Still, there is a set of community guidelines and a | user agreement, which prohibits deliberately obscene | usernames, pornography, and threats to kill others. | Meaning even Parler's free speech absolutists have some | vague rules for what they deem as too offensive. "When | you disagree with someone, posting pictures of your fecal | matter in the comment section WILL NOT BE TOLERATED," | wrote Matze during a consequential exchange on his site, | shattering the hopes of conservatives and libertarians | everywhere who dream of a social media site with a | completely laissez-faire ToS. | at-fates-hands wrote: | Which is why it was started. | | Because all of the people who defended Twitter from | suppressing conservative voices told them if they don't | like it, they can start their own network. | | Which is exactly what they did. | | Now THOSE people who told them to start their own network | so they could do as they please, are up in arms because | they didn't moderate their content enough for their | liking? | | Seriously, that's asinine. | uncoder0 wrote: | That's a fair point. As a self dubbed 'free-speech' | platform I'd assume they'd shy away from the excessive | moderation seen on Facebook. | guerrilla wrote: | Did you look? Here's the first result in a search [1] | | [1] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/06/trump-riot- | twi... | molbioguy wrote: | The article linked does mention Parler, but focuses more | heavily on YouTube, FaceBook, Twitter and Redit. | ojbyrne wrote: | You need a license to legally use the US highway system. It is | patrolled by police who can stop you at any time and request | your documents. You can have that license revoked for a variety | of reasons. | | The highway has a crapton of regulations around how you can use | it. Speed limits, rules against drunk driving, driving only in | 1 direction, requiring your lights be on (in some places during | the daytime). | | Nobody (almost) complains about limits on "free driving." | pixl97 wrote: | Yep, OPs entire argument is very poor and very much a | strawman. | | If you start doing crazy stuff on the highway you _will_ not | only be stopped, but potentially fined and imprisoned. | FredDollen wrote: | Right, now imagine only conservatives are having their | licenses revoked for such violations. | rpvnwnkl wrote: | A better analogy would be landlord-tenant. AWS was the landlord | here. Although they should have the right to evict Tenants | under certain circumstances, we might all be better off if | these evictions were legal proceedings, and could be documented | and challenged in court. | tathougies wrote: | Speech should have limits, but calling anything that took place | on parler automatically 'hate speech' so contemptible that it | ought to result in banning along with everything else on that | site is ridiculous. There have been few instances of truly | censorship-worthy speech over the past year, from either left | or right. | ArtDev wrote: | The content I saw on Parler was more akin to an ISIS | recruitment website than just plain hate speech. | tathougies wrote: | I've been on parler for months. Stop exaggerating | munificent wrote: | _> I think the speech part should always be 100% free._ | | I don't think a claim like this is meaningful without a precise | definition of "speech". And, consequently, I think you'll find | any attempt to define which things are not "speech" ends up | being functionality equivalent to dialing back from that | theoretical 100%. | | In general, you can't have 100% freedom over any finite | resource. If there's only one dessert in the fridge, you and I | can not both have 100% freedom to eat it. | | If you presume that any meaningful "speech" has some non-zero | audience size, then speakers are competing for the finite | attention of other humans. You can't have perfect freedom for | that. | Domenic_S wrote: | > _you and I can not both have 100% freedom to eat it._ | | Schrodinger's pie - you both have 100% freedom to eat it | until one of you actually does | dmode wrote: | I don't understand the comparison with US highway | infrastructure. That infrastructure cannot be use to spread | "crime" at rapid scale, leading to extreme degradation of | society. The whole ISIS movement took advantage of lax | enforcement and created a monster that will haunt was for | decades. What's the equivalent for highway infrastructure ? Are | drug dealers using it to spread addiction at rapid scale ? | brlewis wrote: | > I feel like we've all been a bit brainwashed by the | government in our notion that "free speech" must have limits | | Convince me. I have a side project that's intended to foster | free speech, but I disallow advocating harm toward identifiable | humans, except through process of law. Should this limit really | be removed? | richardthered wrote: | Nobody is proposing to remove the infrastructure itself. It's a | question of who gets to decide who gets to _use_ the | infrastructure. | | Imagine that you have a private company that manages all of the | toll roads in a city. One day, this company decides that they | no longer want John Smith to use their toll roads. John Smith | is banned. | | Maybe John is a terrible person. Criminal convictions, DUIs, | whatever. Regardless of that, should a private company have | unilateral right to ban a customer? With no recourse? No | appeal, no accountability? There is no elected official to vote | out of office if you don't like it. There's no appeals court to | hear your claim. John is just banned. He now has to drive an | extra 30 minutes every day because he can't use the high-speed | toll roads to get to work. | | Parler is problematic. For sure. And I'm a big believer in free | speech, and that companies, in general, should be able to run | their business however they want. | | However, there are limits. A sandwich shop can't refuse to | serve a customer because they are black, for instance. But cake | shops can refuse to serve customers if they are gay, as we | recently learned from supreme court cases. | | I think that much of the issue here revolves around how much of | a monopoly a company has. If my local sandwich shop doesn't | want to serve me, because I'm a jerk, that's fine. I can just | go to another shop down the street. I'm not that | inconvenienced. | | But these massive tech companies have enormous ecosystems. They | dominate their industries, and are often the only really viable | choice in their markets. | | I see a constant stream of article about YouTubers that build a | massive business with millions of followers, and then one day | 'poof', Google kicks them off, and they have no recourse. | | Or the guy on Facebook that spent $47 million dollars in | advertising over the years, and one day Facebook kicks him off, | banned for life. No recourse, no appeal, no explanation, even. | | Apple and Google have absolute say over their app stores, and | what is allowed. Companies can be ruined overnight because some | algorithm tipped from the "ok" to "not ok" overnight. | | This is troubling. | oblib wrote: | We have to consider the old adage about screaming "Fire" in a | crowded theater. | | Unfettered free speech would dictate we can all do that anytime | we want because free speech has no limits. | | Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, limited the scope of banned speech | to that which would be directed to and likely to incite | imminent lawless action. That is where the line in free speech | ends. | | The notion that the purveyor of technologies used to distribute | speech that are incitements to imminent lawless action has no | legal obligation in regards to the consequences is akin to | saying a theater owner has no obligation to make sure a person | who's repeatedly screamed "Fire!" and caused a stampede that | injures people isn't allowed in their theater doesn't hold up. | And it has ground at all to stand on if the theater owner | actively pursues them and promotes they can do that in their | theater. | | In this case, Parlor has essentially pursued and invited those | who love to scream "Fire" and actively encourage them to use | their service to do that. And in fact they used it to organize | a mob and help plan a insurrection. | | And it did not matter to them that lies were being spread to | fan the flames of hate, or who or how many might lose their | lives as a result. | | Parlor is a prime example of the lowest form of capitalism. | Little different than crack dealers. We cannot let them hide | behind the noble goals of "Free Speech". | offby37years wrote: | The cliche about "screaming fire in a crowded movie theater" | misconstrues limits on the 1A. | | https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a- | ha... | | https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its- | tim... | Fellshard wrote: | One of Greenwald's observations was that no planning occurred | on Parler, but rather tended to occur on FB. If you'd used | Parler before it went down (I poked it months ago, before all | this madness, and found it to be sorely lacking), you'd notice | that it's a shoutcasting platform like Twitter, and is wholly | unsuitable for any kind of event planning. At most, you could | give messages saying to prepare for X at event Y, which is | 'planning' of a sort, I suppose. | dragonwriter wrote: | > One of Greenwald's observations was that no planning | occurred on Parler | | No, that's one of his unsubstantiated claims that | conveniently fits the ideological tirade he's been on since | long before the events in question. | | Other journalists have pointed to planning on Parler, | including citing specific posts. | Amezarak wrote: | Planning also occurred on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit. | Violent threats and incitement to violence occur on these | platforms all the time. Some of this content is moderated. | Much of it is not. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Planning also occurred on Facebook, Twitter, and | Reddit. | | Sure. | | And that may indicate problems with those platforms. At a | minimum, though, those platforms reacted against | continued use by the same terrorists once it was | unmistakably, publicly, concretely clear that they were a | deadly serious threat. | Amezarak wrote: | There are still plenty of posts by these people on those | platforms. | MrMan wrote: | an assertion, not an observation | Fellshard wrote: | He provides some cursory anecdotal evidence to that effect | in the article, at least. My only addition is observing the | nature of the platform itself as also making it an unlikely | venue for that activity. But people have used platforms for | entirely unsuitable purposes before... | hertzrat wrote: | I don't think he said that. He said that many of those | arrested were not active parler users, and that significantly | more planing happened on Facebook and Twitter | useful wrote: | Counterpoint: if tanks were the primary way to transport | something obvious like a giant battle tank that were being used | to kill people and attempt overthrow of the government. If the | checkpoints setup couldn't catch enough of them to remove the | danger, would you support shutdowns of the highway | infrastructure until the checkpoints could stop them? | bun_at_work wrote: | > I very much doubt that that is true. I think the speech part | should always be 100% free. | | A trivial counterpoint is shouting fire in a theater, or other | forms of inciting a riot. | fsociety wrote: | A highway doesn't scale in the same way a social media site | does. I disagree that this is brainwashing. We just don't know | how to cope with the internet's scale and the answer is not | clear.. | 29athrowaway wrote: | It is a bad analogy to compare Parler with a highway. | | If Twitter is a highway, Parler is a tunnel operated by drug | cartels. | | What do you think about the Silk road? The onion website that | operated strictly in Tor that was a marketplace used | exclusively for crime? That is infrastructure too right? Should | it be legal? Fuck no. | | Stop defending a lost cause. They got shut down because they | tried to stage a coup by kidnapping senators in the Capitol. | | They failed, and it is a good thing that they failed, and it is | a good thing they got censored. And it is great that more | companies decide to do the same. | | Shut them down, all of them. Enough is enough. Have you ever | been assaulted by a Trumper while minding your own business, | just for being a minority? I have. These news make me happy. | Adios, amigos... Your movement will never attain anything | again. | totalZero wrote: | Highways are a public utility. AWS is a private for-profit | service. | | Drug trafficking and gun running are illegal activities. | Generic Parler hate may not be illegal. | | Your argument does not establish an effective parallel between | the things you are comparing. | mywittyname wrote: | AWS has terms of service that are legally allowed to be broad | and ambiguous. Violation of these terms of service is grounds | for removal from their platform. AWS has sole authority over | the adjudication of such violations and they are under no | obligation to inform the client as to the reason behind their | decision. | | If we want to limit the powers of these platforms, then | Congress needs to pass laws limiting the scope of ToS and/or | create a regulatory agency charged with adjudicating claims. | | There's no analogs or moral arguments necessary. Just the | legal ones. And Congress has failed to take any action to | invoke legal authority over these platforms and their ToS. | Thus, the government has minimal control here. | totalZero wrote: | AWS sets its own terms because it is a business. | | A highway is funded in large part via taxation. | | The argument is a poor one because it draws parallels | between things that are not parallel. There is no | indication that (A) it serves the public interest for the | government to forcibly alter business decisions, nor that | (B) there is an existing legal basis upon which to do so. | buffington wrote: | While I like the highway analogy, it only works if the places | where "free speech" are being conducted are US owned , public | infrastructure. | | A closer analogy would be private roads. If Amazon owned a | series of private highways used solely for shipping goods, | would we care if they stopped transporting items they didn't | agree with on those Amazon owned highways? | | Forgive me if I'm repeating a common refrain here, but the | words we say on Twitter, Parler, Facebook, and even HN aren't | "free", spoken in a public place. They're owned by Twitter, | Parler, Facebook and HN. Those companies can choose to do | whatever they want, for better or worse. | chrischattin wrote: | If that's the case, they're acting as publishers and should | be liable for the content. | buffington wrote: | I don't disagree. | | But right now, it doesn't matter if I disagree or not. US | law makes it very clear what responsibilities and rights | publishers have. | | Title 47 U.S. Code SS 230 explicitly states that publishers | are not liable for the content that their users post, with | some minor exceptions related to sex trafficking. | | They are also allowed to restrict whatever they like, | whether it's constitutionally protected or not. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Title 47 U.S. Code SS 230 explicitly states that | publishers are not liable for the content that their | users post, with some minor exceptions related to sex | trafficking. | | No, it doesn't. | | It states that online systems with user generated content | (and other users on such systems) aren't treated as | publishers of what their users post, with some major | exceptions related to civil liability related to sex | trafficking _and all criminal liability regardless of | subject matter_. Civil liability _not_ deriving from | status as a "publisher" is also not on its face, | affected, though some courts have also applied 230, | controversially, to immunize against notice-based civil | liability that would apply to them as _distributors_ , | even if they aren't considered publishers. | buffington wrote: | > No, it doesn't. | | To be accurate, it certainly does. | | > No provider or user of an interactive computer service | shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any | information provided by another information content | provider. | | It also says other things that I neglected to state, most | importantly, that section 230 does nothing to change | criminal law, so it's also fair to call me out on that. | dragonwriter wrote: | > To be accurate, it certainly does. | | No, it doesn't say they won't be liable for user content, | it says they won't be considered the publisher. There is | liability for content that is tied to being a publisher, | and there is liability that has other bases. On its face, | 230 says nothing about liability on other bases (as noted | in GP, some courts have also used it to provide immunity | from liability as a distributor, but that is | controversial and not stated in the text.) | LinuxBender wrote: | 230 does protect platforms from liability of what their | user base posts. Having run forums and chat servers for a | long time, I can attest to the experience of having to | moderate content and having received legal complaints. | There are two major factors that people are conflating in | these discussions. There is the direct legal aspect of | having illicit content. The platform is covered if they | make an effort to remove illicit content AND they | themselves are not encouraging the illegal behavior. So | for example, if they have users that also have admin | roles and make sub-forums that promote illegal behavior | and they do not warn/ban the admins, they may eventually | be outside the protection of section 230. | | Then there is the acceptable use policy of the hosting | provider(s). _dns, server, cdn, app store_ This is | entirely outside of 230. If the provider gets enough | complaints, they may eventually see your site as a risk | and may choose to terminate your account in order to | protect the image of their business. They do not want | their reputation tarnished as it will affect their | profits. I think that is totally fair. If you want to run | a site that may likely provoke emotional response from | the public, then in my opinion it would be best to find a | hosting provider that accepts the risk in a contract. The | contract should state what is expected of you and what | you expect of them and what happens if the contract is to | be terminated, such as off-boarding timelines. Smaller | startups are at higher risk as they provider has less to | lose by booting them off their infrastructure. | | Where I believe this issue has gone sideways is what the | industry believes to be considered an appropriate method | of moderation. The big platforms like Facebook, Twitter, | Apple are using automated systems to block or shadow-ban | things they consider a risk to their company or their | hosting providers. This leads to people fleeing those | systems and going to the smaller startups that do not yet | have these automated moderation and shadow-banning | systems and that is what happened with Parler and a | handful of other newer platforms that wanted to capture | all the refuges of the big platforms. A similar thing is | happening with that alternate to Youtube, but I can not | remember what it is called. Bitchute? | | Another potential problem that may confuse the 230 | discussion could be that many powerful politicians and | corporate leaders use the big platforms like Twitter and | Facebook. They and big lobbyists and investors may have | some influence over the behavior of these platforms and | may be able to tell them to squash the sites that do not | follow the automated version of banning and shadow- | banning. Does that create echo chambers? Is that what is | happening here? Not sure. If so, I predict it will push | many people under ground and that is probably not great | for agents that would like to keep an eye on certain | people. | CarelessExpert wrote: | > If that's the case, they're acting as publishers and | should be liable for the content. | | I'm afraid you're misinformed. | | https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hell | o... | | > > If you said "Once a company like that starts moderating | content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher" | | > I regret to inform you that you are wrong. I know that | you've likely heard this from someone else -- perhaps even | someone respected -- but it's just not true. The law says | no such thing. Again, I encourage you to read it. The law | does distinguish between "interactive computer services" | and "information content providers," but that is not, as | some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying "platform" or | "publisher." There is no "certification" or "decision" that | a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects | all websites and all users of websites when there is | content posted on the sites by someone else. | | > To be a bit more explicit: at no point in any court case | regarding Section 230 is there a need to determine whether | or not a particular website is a "platform" or a | "publisher." What matters is solely the content in | question. If that content is created by someone else, the | website hosting it cannot be sued over it. | | Edit: BTW, I'd suggest reading that whole article. Section | 230 has been misrepresented by politicians and the media | fairly regularly, and this piece does a nice job of laying | out the current state of the law and its interpretation and | application. | 1234letshaveatw wrote: | Aren't you being a bit pedantic? The statement was an | opinion, not a legal argument | CarelessExpert wrote: | I didn't read the comment as an opinion. What they wrote | is a common misunderstanding of section 230 that, these | days, is being promulgated by defenders of Parler. | matt-attack wrote: | Honestly my road analogy was more about reflecting on the | notion of limits on free speech in general. It was not meant | to be compared to the specific issue of AWS & Twitter. It was | meant to draw our attention to the fact that we | wholeheartedly endorse many systems (e.g. roads) that | absolutely facilitate immoral and criminal activity. And | that's ok to do. Thus I claim that it's similarly ok to | endorse absolutely free speech without limits, _despite_ the | immoral & illegal activity that it might incite. | | Roads _encourage_ bank-robbers. Honestly who would rob a bank | if you could only flee on foot? It 's ok though that it | encourages and facilitates bank robbers. We should not close | the roads because of it. | | We need to be OK that certain things (free speech) can have | huge negative effects and criminal elements. | didibus wrote: | Generally speaking, there's two ways to determine a truth, | either from experimentation and results, or from first | principles. | | From the experimentation side of things, you have Canada, | Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, South Africa, | Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (I'm probably | missing some) where they impose restrictions on free speech | while still having mostly free speech rights. You can even | include the US as well, since it does have restrictions, | they're just more relaxed, and seem to only be enforced if | financial damage can be proven from libel. | | Now very broadly looking at that list, it seems that | countries that take a most speech is free (especially | speech that criticizes the government and ruling class), | but some speech is restricted (especially hate related | speech, speech that imply violence to others, speech that | targets minority groups, and diffamation and libel speech) | seem to work pretty well in practice. At least, those | countries have had stable social and economic environments, | and seem to allow for good opportunity to its citizen and | give them a good standard of living in general. | | So from the experimentation side of "truth seeking", it | seems to me I'm not seeing an argument for absolutely all | speech should be free always no matter the circumstances or | the intent of the speech. | | Now, we don't have a good experiment example of "all speech | goes" unfortunately. Maybe the US is the closest to it, and | that seems to be causing quite a lot of social and economic | instability for now at least. But I'd say it's too soon to | conclude anything on that front. | | The other approach to "truth seeking" would be from first | principle. The theory around free speech comes from the | liberal progressive thinkers of the enlightenment. So | turning to them for first principle makes sense. From my | research into it (and I welcome you do your own), there | seem to be no winning theory around it. All agree that | speech against government should be free, but how far to | take other speech in other circumstances is not clear. Also | debatable if the government should be free to criticize | groups of citizens or not, because that can enable top down | propaganda and repression, which free speech is trying to | protect against. Most theory seem to recognize the "risks" | with unrestricted free speech, but some believe that the | benefits of free speech against authoritarianism and | majority's rule is worth it, while others think it is | possible to draw a line that protects against this and | mitigates the risk of unrestricted free speech. | | It seems some of the thinkers that are pro unrestricted | free speech also assume the system provides people with an | education that allows them to identify and rationalize fake | and manipulative ideas and thoughts from legitimate ideas | and thoughts. | | So the first principle outlook also seems inconclusive in | my opinion. | | That personally leaves me to conclude that mostly free | speech is good, and fully free speech might also be good | but that's not yet been demonstrated to really know, with | keeping in mind that this uncertainty about fully free | speech could resolve in it being worse or better than | mostly free speech. | downandout wrote: | _I feel like we 've all been a bit brainwashed by the | government in our notion_ | | While I agree with the general sentiment of your comment, I | wouldn't say that the brainwashing has been on the part of the | government. All of the efforts at limiting speech, at least | recently, have come from private, left-leaning people and | organizations. The general consensus seems to be that all | speech that doesn't endorse leftist political views is hate | speech and should therefore be banned. | | I went on Parler, which I had never heard of before last week, | just to see what the big deal was. I saw nothing endorsing | violence, planning attacks, conspiracy theories, or hate | speech. I saw a modern looking Twitter clone with similar, | mundane conversations. I suppose I didn't see much leftist | banter, but that was the only real difference between it and | Twitter. | | The idea that elite liberals with monopoly power colluded to | strangle a site like this, simply because a percentage of its | users likely voted a different way than they did, should be | offensive to all Americans, regardless of political | affiliation. It makes me fear for the future of democracy as a | whole. Democracy cannot exist without the ability to debate. | option wrote: | once you've lived in a totalitarian state, then you instantly | agree with the comment "speech should always be 100% free". It | is just too important value to lose. | | As someone who was born and lived in USSR it pains me so much | to see to many Americans willing to give up or restrict free | speech... | millbraebart wrote: | The hackers of the 90s would be laughing at the | Bezo's/Zuckerberg bootlickers on this site. Big tech and the | feds used to be the evil empire, now over half this site want | them to censor words that make them mad, and tuck them in at | night for good measure. Bezos is reading this stuff and | laughing his ass off, probably with a gaggle of prostitutes | on a yacht in the Caribean somewhere. | mindvirus wrote: | If the primary use and purpose of highways was to commit | crimes, and the people running them refused to do anything | about it, then yes I'd question them or at least their | management. | | I think when speech starts to risk real harm to others, we need | to start thinking carefully about it. It's not so clear cut, | but I think that if someone threatens to harm someone with some | degree of seriousness, society should be able to act before | that harm occurs. | | With Parler (and to be fair, Twitter), I see it creating more | radicalization, which very directly creates a risk of harm to | others as we saw play out on the 6th. And I don't think we | should tolerate it, or we're stuck just treating symptoms | rather than causes. | chrischattin wrote: | What if two groups of people both use the highways to commit | crimes, but the moderators of the highways only enforce the | rules on one group? | mrzimmerman wrote: | That's some sneaky language but this isn't a philosophical | hypothetical. Parler hosted people calling for specific | acts of violence and did hardly anything to moderate them. | Those people were almost entirely right wing and you can | see for yourself looking through the data dumps provided | recently by a hacker or looking up articles about Parler. | | If you have evidence o some other app hosted on AWS where | left wing groups calling for violence and applauding it | when it materializes, but not being shut down, please show | everyone. I won't even go to the extreme of saying it has | to be at the same level or quantity of violent speech we | saw on Parler. | chrischattin wrote: | Uhh, yeah. Twitter, Reddit, etc, etc. | | Edit to reply the post below: | | Actual terrorism? Al-Queda and ISIS are active on | Twitter. There is content still up calling for genocide | against certain ethnicities. Real genocide and terrorism. | Not the hyperbole in U.S. politics. | | U.S. politicians were actively egging on protestors and | calling for violence around the country this summer. | Where do you draw the line? It's cool if one side does it | but not the other? | | There's clearly an uneven application of their moderation | policies. And, they are afforded legal protections as | platforms under the assumption / intent that users create | the content and they stay out of curation. IMO, they | aren't being equitable with enforcing their own rules and | should lose status as platforms. Because clearly they are | opinionated in their enforcement of the ToS. | dragonwriter wrote: | When it became undeniable that the traffic was connected | to actual terrorism, other sites acted swiftly to cut it | off. Parler did not. | | Now, it's arguable that the other sites knowingly | facilitating crime and just hoping to escape consequences | because no one was going to make a big deal of it, and | they only cut it off because the risk of that strategy | increased after the Capitol attack. But while that may | paint the past actions of the other firms in a worse | light, it doesn't paint Parler's actions before it was | cutoff by other suppliers in a better one. | at-fates-hands wrote: | > When it became undeniable that the traffic was | connected to actual terrorism, other sites acted swiftly | to cut it off. | | Remind me when the politicians who promoted the Antifa | and BLM riots and actually set up funds so the protestors | would be bailed out had their accounts "indefinitely | suspended" for doing just what you're describing as the | reason Parler got shut down. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | I don't always go 85 in a 55 but when I do I get passed by | a cop going 95. | | Unequal enforcement is already very much a thing on the | roads. Ever heard of a "fishing stop" or "driving while | black". Getting cut less slack than a boring sedan and a | work truck is one of the few things red Porche drivers and | 30yo shitbox drivers have in common. | dougmccune wrote: | For the analogy to work it's not even enough for the roads to | be used to commit crimes. The roads would have to be | continuously re-routing you from your intended destination | and taking you down roadways filled with signs inciting | violence, cult indoctrination, and lies about reality. | | The algorithmic curation of all social media platforms that | is intentionally built to assault users with the most | distasteful, extreme lies (because it's good for engagement!) | is the real problem in my view. If every social media | platform stopped all algorithmic curation/recommendation and | simply presented a chronological list of updates from people | you follow (and did not recommend who to follow), then I | think the bulk of the problem goes away. | | I have no problem with free speech (even abhorrent speech). | But I have a problem when a person's online experience is | controlled by algorithms specifically designed to ratchet up | the garbage and inundate people with hateful rhetoric. | notthemessiah wrote: | It's pretty telling that "64 percent of people who joined | an extremist group on Facebook only did so because the | company's algorithm recommended it to them" according to | facebook's own research into divisiveness. | https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook- | divisio... | | With all the discussion about Section 230, could such | opaque algorithmic curation constitute a form of editorial | control, not unlike that of a publisher? Could we reform | Section 230 in a way that is pro-user, so if a website | wishes to be a "platform" they would have to make their raw | feed available to the user, or if they provide algorithmic | curation, it's transparent to the user how information is | prioritized? Could we clarify the distinction between | platform and publisher? | 1234letshaveatw wrote: | Wow. That is an amazing statistic- I find it hard to | accept that the average person would be influenced by | social media to that extent but that type of study result | is undeniable. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Could we reform Section 230 in a way that is pro-user, | so if a website wishes to be a "platform" they would have | to make their raw feed available to the use | | That's not reforming 230, that's abolishing it and | repudiating it's entire purpose. _Enabling_ host action | to suppress perceived-as-undesirable content without | increasing host liability for content not removed was the | purpose of 230. | | > Could we clarify the distinction between platform and | publisher? | | The distinction in 230 is _crystal_ clear: to the extent | content items are user-generated, the online service | provider (land other users, even if they may have the | power to promote, demote, or suppress the content _are | not publishers or speakers_ , period, the end. | | The source (whether it is the user that is the source or | the service provider for it's internally-generated, | first-party content) is the publisher or speaker. | mcguire wrote: | Fortunately, the source is easily and transparently held | responsible for their actions.... | lkbm wrote: | This is a bad analogy. The highway is heavily policed to combat | those things, and they're nowhere near a central use-case. | | I'm sure it was a small minority of Parler's activity that was | death threats or planning/encouraging/inciting violence, but it | seems like it was intentionally a safe-haven for those | activities. | | The highway _has_ criminal activity, but is not a safe haven | for criminal activity. Parler appears to have been to an extent | beyond what is generally considered acceptable. | blacklight wrote: | I believe that there are two common and non-negotiable | principles for any kind of freedom to apply: | | 1. Abuses and crimes should always be persecuted. I have read | lots of posts on Parler, and ALL grounds for violent speech, | radicalisation and terrorism apply to lots of them. I've read | posts inviting people to hang and quarter democrats on the | streets in front of their families, as well as posts inviting | armed sedition against the institutions. Those who use this | kind of language MUST be made accountable of their words, just | like we'd make ISIS supporters accountable of their words. It's | not that just because they're white and Christian dudes that | look like us we can condone them a bit more. And if a platform | refuses to limit this language, then the whole platform must be | taken down. | | 2. Your freedom ends where my beings. You may be free of saying | whatever you want, but if that ends up doxxing information | about me that I didn't want to reveal, or it ends up spreading | misinformation about me that ends up in death threats, then you | are NOT free to do that. | | Parler has failed to guarantee both the non-negotiable freedoms | when it comes to building a sustainable free speech framework, | therefore it must be taken down. I really fail to see any | contradiction in this. | | And keep in mind that the anarco-liberalist vision of free | speech is something that has arisen only in the past couple of | decades. The founding fathers of the liberal school thought | (including Popper and Hayek), those who had REALLY seen how | things in Europe ended up when unlimited freedom of speech is | guaranteed also to fascist jerks, were well-aware that | unconstrained freedom with no framework to contain | fundamentalism is a threat to a tolerant society. "Being | intolerant with the intolerant is a civic duty for a tolerant | society that wants to preserve its values" (Popper) | unanswered wrote: | > I've read posts inviting people to hang and quarter | democrats on the streets in front of their families, as well | as posts inviting armed sedition against the institutions. | | And I've read posts on HN saying we should hang and quarter | Trump supporters; should HN be wiped from the face of the | earth? | mcguire wrote: | Could you point them out? We tend to downvote and flag that | sort of thing, although dang usually gets to them first. | unanswered wrote: | "I vote we whack as many Nazis as we can." | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25749435 | | Took me about 30 seconds to find. But in general I will | not do unpaid moderation work for ideological crusaders | like dang. For example, I'm sure there will be a | reallllly good excuse why this comment is actually okay. | And I'll probably get flagged/moderated for good measure. | | Oh, but for good measure... "The radical right is a | scourge ... They need to be repeatedly smacked down until | normalcy is achieved." | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25749634 | darkarmani wrote: | Those aren't examples of violence. Did you read the whole | quotes? | | It's a reference to the children's game whack-a-mole | about banning Nazis from a platform: | | > If we have to play an constant game of Whack-a-Nazi, I | vote we whack as many Nazis as we can. | | It's like you aren't even trying to hide your | distortions. | unanswered wrote: | "We really need to whack Joe Biden before he becomes | president!" | | That's okay, right? Because it's just a children's game, | right? Or is it interpreted differently depending on who | the target is? Nazis, whacking them is just a game. | Leftists, whacking them is srs bsns? | darkarmani wrote: | > Or is it interpreted differently depending on who the | target is? Nazis, whacking them is just a game. | | Did you read the full quote or not? The context matters | not the targets (in this case a singular target changes | the context). There is only one Joe Biden, so they way | you are using it has a different context. If it was about | whacking lib-trolls from your news group, that's | different than specifying a person. | | Maybe you aren't a native english speaker, but whack-a- | mole is a common carnival game. That's the context in the | quote YOU picked. | mcguire wrote: | " _" I vote we whack as many Nazis as we can."_" | | The complete quote: "If we have to play an constant game | of Whack-a-Nazi, I vote we whack as many Nazis as we | can." | | That is a reference to the game Whack-A-Mole. Literally, | that would mean hitting them with a soft foam hammer. | | " _Oh, but for good measure... "The radical right is a | scourge ... They need to be repeatedly smacked down until | normalcy is achieved."_" | | owlbynight's entire quote: | | " _Our political representatives are corrupt and | generally represent whomever gives them the most money, | namely large corporations._ | | " _We, the people, are represented through our wallets | now by the corporations that control our politicians | because social media has unionized us. We 're able to use | online platforms to leverage companies into giving us | what we want socially by threatening them when they step | out of line. The companies that led to Parler shutting | down were acting on public sentiment as a boon to their | brands, thus ultimately reflecting the will of the | people._ | | " _It 's kind of like a single payer system for social | justice._ | | " _It 's weird end run back to representation but I'll | take it for now. The radical right is a scourge that, | unchecked, will lead to us having no rights at all. They | need to be repeatedly smacked down until normalcy is | achieved._" | | I could be wrong, but I'm also not reading that as a call | for violence, much less "hang and quarter". It's not a | particularly attractive metaphor, though. | unanswered wrote: | See what I mean? There's _always_ an excuse for leftist | calls for violence; whereas right-wing calls for peace | like Trump 's recent tweets are akshually dogwhistles for | violence. I'm disgusted. | | It just jumps so easily to your mind how to defend, | defend, defend leftist violence; you don't even consider | yourself doing it. You too have trained yourself well as | an ideological crusader. | mcguire wrote: | You are correct. I admit, as a Democrat, that I want to | hit all of those on the right with a medium-sized foam | mallet thing. I am ashamed of the violence in my soul. | unanswered wrote: | Can you show me where on this page "whack" is defined as | a reference to a childrens' game? | | https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whack | | Because all I see is "murder". | | Look how far you will stretch to defend _literal calls | for murder_! What do you even tell yourself your | motivation for doing this is? | JKCalhoun wrote: | I missed those I guess. | unanswered wrote: | Or you turned a blind eye, subconciously perhaps, because | they're acting on behalf of your tribe. | koolba wrote: | > Your freedom ends where my beings. You may be free of | saying whatever you want, but if that ends up doxxing | information about me that I didn't want to reveal, or it ends | up spreading misinformation about me that ends up in death | threats, then you are NOT free to do that. | | You just described investigative journalism. | | Doxxing is not itself a violation of your rights, it's just | taboo when it's done in the small. | | Only when it's done with the intent of causing illegal harm, | such as "X lives here, go kick his ass", would it be a | violation. | johnchristopher wrote: | > Curious if you feel torn supporting the US highway | infrastructure? It can clearly be used for to traffic drugs, | humans, blackmarket weapons, etc. It can be used to flee | justice, evade police, abets vehicular manslaughter, etc. The | list goes on and on. Is it even controversial to support the | highway system as is? Do we loose sleep over it? | | They get closed fast when the shit hits the fan though. So, | where does the analogy leave us ? | tenebrisalietum wrote: | Is it censorship if law enforcement puts up a blockade to catch | a suspected criminal? | | Is it censorship is law enforcement shuts down a section of | highway due to safety issues? | sanderjd wrote: | From my perspective, your analogy fits for the internet | backbone, but not for the fact pattern under discussion here. | To stretch the analogy, I think AWS would be more like a really | big network of private distribution centers where client | businesses can drop off and pick up goods. I think those | distribution centers would be well within their rights to | refuse to serve clients who are trafficking "drugs, humans, | blackmarket weapons, etc". | toper-centage wrote: | If there was a highway that was mostly used by drug cartels, | blocking it would be a no brainer. That's not an adequate | comparison. The problem is really that this is uncharted | digital territory and, as always, our laws are too outdated to | fit a digital world. Facebook/Twitter has enough money to flood | a competitor social network with nazi spam, to bribe | journalists to write about it and to push competition to | destruction and still have hacker news and reddit applaud it. | Not defending Parlor, but that is a very possible scenario. | tj-teej wrote: | Free Speech does have limits though. If you're incarcerated for | a felony you can't vote, if you go to a mall and start yelling | obscenities you can be removed, if you make youtube videos on | how to create pipebombs the US President can kill you in a | drone strike without a public trial. | | The thing I think people miss when making the "this is an | assault on free speech!" is that they think it's _becoming_ a | gray area, when in fact it has always been a gray area. | mlyle wrote: | > I very much doubt that that is true. I think the speech part | should always be 100% free. Of course any crimes that derive | from it are and will always been fully enforceable. I just | question whether or not the speech itself should be viewed as | illegal, | | So would you say, for instance, that we should be able to do an | unlimited amount of discussion, planning, and coordination of | an elected official's death. And it's only when one person | takes a concrete action towards the plan that they should | anyone be able to be arrested, and only that person? Because | the rest is all protected speech? | datahead wrote: | I found this [1] breakdown helpful to understand the legal | position of this hypothetical. | | > unlimited [...] discussion, planning and coordination | | turns into evidence once "intent" and an "overt act" | thresholds are crossed, for all involved. | | [1] https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal- | charges/conspiracy.htm... | mlyle wrote: | Yes, this would certainly be naughty under current law, but | perhaps not in a legal regime where "all speech is OK!" | Note that the overt act need not be committed by the | speaker, too. | | There's even ambiguity about elements of this in current | law. If one were to advocate for the violent overthrow of | the government, and begin running training exercises to | help people prepare to overthrow the government at some | unspecified future date--- it is unclear whether this is | protected by the First Amendment. SCOTUS mentioned -- but | did not address -- this problem in Stewart v McCoy (2002): | | ... While the requirement that the consequence be | "imminent" is justified with respect to mere advocacy, the | same justification does not necessarily adhere to some | speech that performs a teaching function. As our cases have | long identified, the First Amendment does not prevent | restrictions on speech that have "clear support in public | danger." Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530 (1945). Long | range planning of criminal enterprises-which may include | oral advice, training exercises, and perhaps the | preparation of written materials-involves speech that | should not be glibly characterized as mere "advocacy" and | certainly may create significant public danger. Our cases | have not yet considered whether, and if so to what extent, | the First Amendment protects such instructional speech. Our | denial of certiorari in this case should not be taken as an | endorsement of the reasoning of the Court of Appeals.... | | https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-20.ZA.html | dmitrygr wrote: | There are already laws for the situation you describe. | https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy | nrmitchi wrote: | > I feel like we've all been a bit brainwashed by the | government in our notion that "free speech" must have limits. I | very much doubt that that is true. | | I very much disagree. Hate speech is just one example. "Speech" | designed to terrorize, threaten, and incite action should not | be "free". | | > Of course any crimes that derive from it are and will always | been fully enforceable. | | By this logic no one who is purposely inciting anything is even | liable for the actions that they cause. "Leaders" will never | face punishment, because they only say things, right? | | The line (or at least one of the lines) comes when speech is no | longer an expression, but an instruction. It may be a tough | line to draw, but that doesn't mean that the line shouldn't | exist somewhere. | molbioguy wrote: | Then see [0] which points out that _Brandenburg vs Ohio_ | makes hate speech protected unless there is direct | incitement. | | [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_St | at... | trident5000 wrote: | "hate speech" is a term that was coined in recent years to | silence people. The only things that are dangerous are when | people actually act or are explicit and then we deal with | them. This isnt Minority Report. Free speech is meant to be | nearly absolute and protect unpopular opinions. The only | restrictions are explicit threats (someone is literally | saying they are going to kill someone and names said person) | Today the interpretation has morphed into whatever is | unpopular or is 3 steps away from being an actual threat. | dhosek wrote: | I'm older than 5 years old. This isn't remotely true. | trident5000 wrote: | time-frame admittedly was way off. I edited it. | eightysixfour wrote: | > Free speech is meant to be nearly absolute and protect | unpopular opinions. | | You're missing a part in this line that's very important, | it should be "nearly absolute and protect unpopular | opinions from the government." | chrchang523 wrote: | Let's set aside the distinction between free speech | rights guaranteed by the First Amendment vs. the broader | free speech ideal that's foundational to our society, | since it isn't even needed: as suggested by the | objections from Germany, France, and Mexico noted by | Greenwald, these corporations are effectively acting as | the government, so the reasoning behind the First | Amendment's existence directly applies here. | | (This is not an endorsement of the delusional | presidential behavior that created the leadership vacuum | filled by the corporations.) | eightysixfour wrote: | The irony of referencing Germany as an example when | Germany has an explicit ban on speech that is anti- | constitutional is pretty high here. | | It would be government overreach to tell the platforms | that they're required to host whatever speech is posted | to them, not the other way around. As I've mentioned in | other comments, there are more ways to communicate now | than at any other time in history. Facebook and Twitter | do not have monopolies on speech, nothing on the internet | does. | | See this comment: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25750501 | | Where would you draw the line? | chrchang523 wrote: | The issue is that the corporations are acting as the | government. As you noted, Germany restricts speech more | than the US for obvious historical reasons. So the fact | that even their government objects to this behavior is | evidence against _your_ position, not mine. | | In your linked comment, all of these governments | recognize (3) as a scenario that should be governed by | laws (which vary between countries). | eightysixfour wrote: | > In your linked comment, all of these governments | recognize (3) as a scenario that should be governed by | laws (which vary between countries). | | So why not 2? When does 2 become 3? | | > As you noted, Germany restricts speech more than the US | for obvious historical reasons. So the fact that even | their government objects to this behavior is evidence | against your position, not mine. | | The German and French government objects to the US not | having laws that require this behavior and leaving it in | the hands of private companies, sure, and I object to the | US having censorship laws and would rather private | entities be able to make the decision for themselves, the | direction of MORE freedom of speech. | chrchang523 wrote: | If this was primarily about "[objecting] to the US not | having laws that require this behavior", their emphasis | would not have been on the platforms being out of line. | joshuamorton wrote: | > as suggested by the objections from Germany, France, | and Mexico noted by Greenwald, these corporations are | effectively acting as the government | | To elaborate on the other user, Germany and France both | ban holocaust denial and "hate speech", which would | include much of the content on Parler. Mexico's speech | laws are less clear, but if my reading is correct the | constitution allows regulation of hate speech. And in | practice, speech in Mexico isn't protected from the | government or cartels. | | So France and Germany could be seen as asking the US | government to take a stronger stance on hate speech. This | would, of course, require a constitutional amendment, at | which point anything goes. Excluding that, what you see | (and will continue to see) is corporations stepping in to | ban hate speech because the government is restricted from | doing so. | chrchang523 wrote: | Did you actually read what Merkel or AMLO said? The first | sentence of your second paragraph ("So France and Germany | could be seen as asking the US government to take a | stronger stance on hate speech.") can be immediately | verified to be false in the sense that you are stating it | (as justification for the platforms' behavior). | joshuamorton wrote: | > Asked about Twitter's decision, Merkel's spokesman, | Steffen Seibert, said social media companies "bear great | responsibility for political communication not being | poisoned by hatred, by lies and by incitement to | violence." | | > He said it's right not to "stand back" when such | content is posted, for example by flagging it, but | qualified that the freedom of opinion is a fundamental | right of "elementary significance." | | > Seibert said the U.S. ought to follow Germany's example | in how it handles online incitement. Rather than leaving | it up to tech companies to make their own rules, German | law compels these companies to remove possibly illegal | material within 24 hours of being notified or face up to | $60.8 million in fines. [0] | | You mean verified to be correct as confirmed by her | spokesperson who released the initial statement. (Seibert | released the initial statement, as can be seen here[1]) | | So yes, the statement can be seen as saying two things | | 1. Twitter is too powerful and needs to be regulated | | 2. The US needs stronger regulations on hate speech. | | [0]: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/angela-merkel-rips- | twitters... | | [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel- | hits-out-at-... | mcguire wrote: | From [0]: | | " _Seibert said the U.S. ought to follow Germany's | example in how it handles online incitement. Rather than | leaving it up to tech companies to make their own rules, | German law compels these companies to remove possibly | illegal material within 24 hours of being notified or | face up to $60.8 million in fines._ | | " _" This fundamental right can be intervened in, but | according to the law and within the framework defined by | legislators -- not according to a decision by the | management of social media platforms," he told reporters | in Berlin. "Seen from this angle, the chancellor | considers it problematic that the accounts of the U.S. | president have now been permanently blocked."_" | joshuamorton wrote: | I don't think this contradicts what I've said. One can | conclude from this statement both that Merkel believes | Twitter needs to be regulated, and that the US needs | stronger speech regulation in general. (also I'll note | that what Twitter did isn't actually _illegal_ in | Germany, there 's no law that compels social media | companies to host people) | chrchang523 wrote: | It directly contradicts your use of the statement _as | justification for the platforms ' behavior_. | joshuamorton wrote: | I haven't used the word "justification" so i'm not clear | what you're talking about. My statement was | | > So France and Germany could be seen as asking the US | government to take a stronger stance on hate speech. | | Which was, and continues to be, supported by Merkel's | statement. | chrchang523 wrote: | The primary message from all of these governments is that | the platforms are out of line. | | Your original comment was in support of/elaborating on | "It would be governmental overreach [to set the rules]." | That original comment had an overly permissive rule in | place of what I've bracketed, but that's beside the point | since all of these governments are specifically objecting | that the recent actions are problematically restrictive. | joshuamorton wrote: | > The primary message from all of these governments is | that the platforms are out of line. | | Yes, and one reason for that, as stated by Merkel, is | that the US doesn't have a democratic framework for | managing hate speech. Because such a framework is illegal | under the first amendment. And her statement suggests | that the US adopt a more German framework for | adjudicating such speech, so that corporations don't need | to make their own rules. | | Your claim is that Twitter is "effectively" acting as the | government. That's not true under a significant amount of | law and precedent. (There are cases where private | entities are acting as a government, and importantly, | trying to use government force to suppress speech, Marsh | v. Alabama). | | In fact, one could argue that by censoring speech, | Twitter is explicitly _not_ acting like the government, | because Twitter is taking action the government _cannot_. | mcguire wrote: | It doesn't. I added it because it amplifies your point. | panopticon wrote: | > _" hate speech" is a term that was coined in recent years | to silence people._ | | Americans have been struggling with hate speech and | censorship for well over a century. The most obvious | example is the censoring of the film _The Birth of a | Nation_ back in the late 1910s, but there are examples even | further back in US history. | | Our interpretation of "freedom of speech" (both | philosophically and as protected by the First Amendment) | isn't immutable and has changed since the Bill of Rights | was adopted. Prior to the 1950s, the supreme court upheld | the censorship of books and film for reasons that we now | interpret as unconstitutional, and censorship remained the | law in many states for decades after. | | I would argue that our current expectation for "free | speech" and this idea that it is "nearly absolute" is far | more liberal than what we've seen through most of American | history. | trident5000 wrote: | Freedom of speech starts at absolute, and then has carve- | outs as opined by courts, specifically the supreme court. | panopticon wrote: | And everything I said fits within that framing. Hopefully | I've illustrated how those "carve-outs" have changed | quite a bit over the centuries. | staticman2 wrote: | I'm not sure what you mean by this but Free Speech in | America certainly did not start at absolute. Our | constitution endorsed slavery and slaves had no freedom, | including speech. The constitution only prevented the | federal government from restricting speech. The Supreme | court has both expanded or restricted free speech | depending on the ruling. | intended wrote: | None of this is true. | | Hate speech was very much an issue even before 1947. | | Libel laws alone put paid to your second sentence. | | Free speech is not meant to be nearly absolute - it is not | even meant to be largely absolute, copy right alone would | be incompatible with such a strength of freedom. | trident5000 wrote: | None of what you just wrote is true actually and it is | meant to be nearly absolute. Everything you just listed | is a specific legal carve out. We start with absolute and | insert very specific exceptions through court cases which | are narrow. Copy right just happens to be one of them. | nrmitchi wrote: | By this logic you're saying that advocating and inciting | genocide is just an "unpopular opinion" that deserves to be | protected. You know, because it's not against a specific, | named person. | | I'm not even going converse this with nonsense. | trident5000 wrote: | Actually that would be a direct threat of harm which I | specifically mentioned several times. So no, I'm actually | not saying that. I'm not sure how its even possible you | arrived at that conclusion. | afuchs wrote: | How is it determined if something is a call to genocide | or otherwise a call to commit harm? | | From what I can tell, whether speech in the form of | "group X should be eliminated" constitutes a threat is | still subject to controversy [1]. | | [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/daily- | dish/archive/2007/02/steyn... | [deleted] | TeaDrunk wrote: | "hate speech" is not a recent term unless you mean that it | was developed in the past century. In the united states, | hate speech was determined as a limitation on the first | amendment in 1942. | trident5000 wrote: | Can you point to the court case (court case that was not | subsequently overruled)? The reason I dont believe this | is that would be extremely arbitrary. If hate speech is | in fact banned it likely has a very narrow and explicit | definition in the ruling, most likely circling back to | direct threats of harm. | chc wrote: | Chaplinsky v New Hampshire found that a law forbidding | abusive speech in public was Constitutional because the | words in question "by their very utterance inflict injury | or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." | throwaway0a5e wrote: | We're so far down in the comments I forget who's arguing | for what but I don't think that case is relevant. | | That case gave rise to the "fighting words" doctrine or | test which has (thus far) only been applied | (successfully) to speech that is so vulgar or offensive | as to provoke violence. A good representative example is | the recent Twisted Tea smackdown video that made the | rounds. If a police officer had swooped in and arrested | the instigator before he got hit the arrest likely would | have been kosher under the doctrine because the n-word is | generally so vulgar you don't expect to be able to use it | in that manner and not start a fight. Basically it's used | to justify arresting someone for speech so inflammatory | that even though you are not picking a fight someone is | inevitably gonna pick a fight with you whether you want | one or not. | | I can't think of any case where it was used to prosecute | someone for calling for "adjacent to violence" type | behavior. I am unaware of any cases (that have not been | overturned) where fighting words doctrine was used as a | justification for suppressing political speech. If you | know of any examples I'd be interested to read them. | chc wrote: | There's sort of a catch to the way you're framing the | question. Instances of speech that are forbidden are | generally not considered political speech, even if there | are political issues involved. For example, if I threaten | the President because of his policies, there is obviously | a political angle to that, but it is also a fairly | uncontroversial felony. | | For a concrete example of nominally political threatening | speech that was found not to be protected, see Planned | Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists, where | it was found that certain anti-abortion ads were not | protected by the First Amendment because they reasonably | caused the targeted doctors to fear for their safety. I | don't believe they explicitly invoked the "fighting | words" doctrine, but it relied on the same principle as | Chaplinsky -- that if speech has the effect of creating a | real-life threat, the speech isn't necessarily protected | by the First Amendment. | | (To be clear, the point wasn't that Chaplinsky is the be- | all-end-all, just that the concept of "hate speech," | where the consequences of some speech make it unworthy of | free speech protections, is not a recent invention.) | throwaway0a5e wrote: | > that if speech has the effect of creating a real-life | threat | | >(To be clear, the point wasn't that Chaplinsky is the | be-all-end-all, just that the concept of "hate speech," | where the consequences of some speech make it unworthy of | free speech protections, is not a recent invention.) | | Yes, but those consequences must be imminent and | unlawful. | | The point of Chaplinsky isn't that it's a real life in | the moment affront to civility so offensive that it's | bound to cause a fight. | | Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life | Activists is about specific threats, e.g. "I'm going to | specifically kill you". | | Both examples of non-protected speech are under totally | different doctrines (I forget how far back the specific | credible threat doctrine goes and what the real name for | it is but it's really old, older than planned parenthood) | that were more or less condensed into the "imminent | lawless conduct" test established in (Brandenbyug). | | It's going to be very hard for anything that is published | in an asynchronous medium that isn't a direct call to | lawless action by someone who can credibly get people to | pull it off to fail the test because in order for the | lawless action to happen people must do things that would | be premeditated crimes on their own. There is no current | US court doctrine for limiting free speech with regard to | hate unless the content and situational details add up to | something that fails the Brandenburg test. | trident5000 wrote: | v New Hampshire. I dont know much about this one (which | is limited to a single state) but 1) it can be overturned | by the supreme court, 2) if its an old ruling there may | be an updated ruling 3) I have not seen the parameters | that justify abusive speech, its probably quite specific. | mcguire wrote: | You know, if you narrow your definition enough, it | becomes physically impossible to satisfy. Try adding | "...and was issued on a Thursday." | Daishiman wrote: | You need to actually read up on the history of the | Enlightenment and the philosophers who actually devised the | notion of free speech and how they envisioned its use. | | In no way does it even reflect the possibility of something | like Parler being used to amplify the sort of messaging it | does. | [deleted] | trident5000 wrote: | We have court opinions on what free speech means in this | country and the supreme court has made the heavy | decisions on that. Its not a distorted wish list of what | each individual wants it to be. | chc wrote: | Those court opinions all say it's absolutely fine under | the First Amendment for a private business to refuse to | do business with another business that it finds | objectionable, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. | trident5000 wrote: | This off-shooting discussion has nothing to do with | Parler or any other business which for sure does have | that legal right. | smoe wrote: | Not GP, but I would expect parts of the highway infrastructure | where more crimes occur to be more closely monitored and | controlled than others. I don't see how this is a black and | white issue where you either should be in support or against | the highway infrastructre. | | And since you mention drug trafficking, Personally, I think | 100% of drugs should be legal and we have been brainwashed by | the governments and media about their effects. But I realize | that it is currently very much not the case where I live, so I | have to be aware that my actions might have consequences and | know I'm going to have a hard time to convience others of my | view, so I might have to compromise to get anywhere. | | This should be in my opinion the main focus of democracy: to | contiously tweak the system to what the current society agrees | on in regards to living together instead of inisting on ideals. | It just seems to me, that most democracies are not really fond | of the idea of taking democracy actually seriosly. | _greim_ wrote: | > Curious if you feel torn supporting the US highway | infrastructure? It can clearly be used for to traffic drugs, | humans, blackmarket weapons, etc. | | This is a good thought experiment actually. I think typical | Americans support policing all roads and highways, especially | where stretches of road are known to be frequented by bad | actors. If private corporations owned highway infrastructure | and unilaterally decided to shut down segments of road in order | to stop those bad actors, it should raise a lot of questions. | | I think this highlights the need for better legislation, not | _only_ to limit corporations ability to shut down services, but | but to replace that with policing put in place by elected | governance and based on laws that apply equally to everyone. | toss1 wrote: | We have free speech. That means I can speak freely, and not be | compelled to repeat or amplify what you/they/govt want me to | say. | | Free speech is one thing, free amplification of speech at | global scale is another | | To the highway analogy: Yes, highways can be used for crimes. | And there are restrictions on highways to prevent crime, | enforced by everything including local police, county sheriffs, | state police, border patrol, and national guard when necessary. | | The Interstate highway system was built specifically for | wartime transport of people and materials. One of the | specifications was to be able to move a division coast-coast in | 24 hours. | | You can get away with small crimes on the highways. | | However, if you try to wage your own war doing that, with | significant numbers of your own fighters, you will be shut down | pretty quickly. | | Similarly, we have free speech. | | I am also not required to amplify your speech. That would be | compelled speech - your govt compelling me to speak what I do | not want to say - just as bad as forbidding me to say what I | want. | | Similarly, nothing should require any hosting provider to carry | the propaganda for someone else's war, when they do not want to | be a part of the war (and make no mistake, what was being | planned on Parler is nothing short of war). No hosting provider | should be required to carry, or be prevented from carrying porn | either. | | Should the New York Times be required to carry David Duke's | (fmr KKK Grand Wizard) screed on the benefits of racism, or | should Fox be required to carry Bernie Sander's latest speech? | | This is no different from the press since Guttenberg. | | If you want free speech, speak | | If you want free amplification at scale, build your own press | or find a friendly one. | danaliv wrote: | The highways are policed. Parler was not. | garrettgrimsley wrote: | >The highways are policed. Parler was not. | | "And contrary to what many have been led to believe, Parler's | Terms of Service includes a ban on explicit advocacy of | violence, and they employ a team of paid, trained moderators | who delete such postings." | | -TFA | abc_lisper wrote: | Let us be real. People who were using Parler were using it to | plan violence. If not, no one is stopping them from using FB or | Twitter or some other social network. There is no special love | for Parlers rights except that it allows illegal activities not | covered by free speech. People who are fighting this are using | free speech as a blanket to do what they wish | SkyPuncher wrote: | > Curious if you feel torn supporting the US highway | infrastructure? It can clearly be used for to traffic drugs, | humans, blackmarket weapons, etc. It can be used to flee | justice, evade police, abets vehicular manslaughter, etc. The | list goes on and on. Is it even controversial to support the | highway system as is? Do we loose sleep over it? | | IMO, this is literally a strawman argument. You're picking a | very rare, extreme event and amplifying the importance of that | event in an attempt to make an argument. | | Following the implication of your argument (that we don't worry | about a rare even on an otherwise good system), we shouldn't | even bat an eye at Parler being removed. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | It's by definition not a straw-man. He's not misconstruing | the parent's point. He's making a comparing or extending it | to another subject. It might be comically bad comparison but | it's not a straw-man. | boublepop wrote: | There isn't really anything related to free speech here. No one | censored parler, let alone the government. Amazon and Apple | didn't even censor them, just refused to support their product | because they failed to live up to the terms of service. | | The only element of free speech ironically was that Parler was | found to censor left-leaning and moderate messages in its | forum. | JudgeGroovyman wrote: | No the internet is the highway infrastructure in this metaphor | and no one is proposing to ban the internet. | | We are debating whether the hateful series of billboards and | bulletin boards along the side of the road can be removed by | monopolies or not. | jarjoura wrote: | Crossing a state line on a federal highway to commit an illegal | act is a federal crime. Parler was given the opportunity to | police itself, and they defiantly said, no. What other choice | do these companies have? They can't just leave it ignore it, | considering there was legitimate concern for the safety of | other humans lives. | dillondoyle wrote: | But the US highway is policed (moderated), maybe too much (e.g. | racial profiling in violation of a few constitutional | amendments). | | Whereas Parlor intentionally created a system where there was | virtually no/super biased moderation, and bragged about it as a | core feature. | | It would be like if the various law enforcement that is tasked | with keeping the drugs, trafficking etc you mention off the | road, were instead staffed entirely by a group of a handful of | these very same law breakers who obviously vote in their own | illegal interests. | | And additionally the creators of the highway spoke to the | NyTimes bragging about their setup, maybe even telling the | public about specific highway routes for these criminals | travel. | thrwn_frthr_awy wrote: | If the highway system was created purpose or was majorly used | for traffic drugs, humans, blackmarket weapons, etc., and the | people running/building/profiting from the highways support | trafficing drugs, humans, blackmarket weapons, etc. then I | would not support the highway infrastructure. | [deleted] | bentcorner wrote: | > _Curious if you feel torn supporting the US highway | infrastructure? It can clearly be used for to traffic drugs, | humans, blackmarket weapons, etc. It can be used to flee | justice, evade police, abets vehicular manslaughter, etc. The | list goes on and on. Is it even controversial to support the | highway system as is? Do we loose sleep over it?_ | | I've seen this kind of argument all too frequently in the last | week. While I don't think the People Who Decide what is taken | down to be infallible, I do think that we're all capable of | making reasonable decisions here. Taking down a hate speech | site obviously doesn't mean we need to delete the internet, or | iPhones, or whatever else Parler users have in common with | every other person who uses the internet. | | > _I feel like we 've all been a bit brainwashed by the | government in our notion that "free speech" must have limits. I | very much doubt that that is true. I think the speech part | should always be 100% free. Of course any crimes that derive | from it are and will always been fully enforceable. I just | question whether or not the speech itself should be viewed as | illegal, or something that should be regulated._ | | I strongly disagree. Apps and websites being taken down is not | something new at all, and what happened to Parler is only | notable because it impacted more people. | | There are many sites that are IMO righteously taken down. Our | conversation should not be "should big tech control what we see | online", but should be "where do we draw the line?". | trianglem wrote: | I definitely think speech should have legislative limits. I | like Germany's model. | gigatexal wrote: | The analogy of the highway system is apt. I never thought of it | like that. | | That being said the Supreme Court has weighed in on what kinds | of speech are protected under "free speech" and which aren't. | Overt calls for violence and such are not protected. | stephencoyner wrote: | If there was a specific highway that was almost exclusively | used by drug / human traffickers, and there was a mountain of | evidence to prove that, it seems like we would really look into | that road and add extra security or shut it down until we could | get a plan together. | throwaway316943 wrote: | By building a wall across it perhaps? | stephencoyner wrote: | Not what I was referring to at all, but I see where you're | going. | | I was just trying to make a point that this was removing a | toxin from the app eco-system. Not a harmless player who | did mostly good with a few "bad apples" | threatofrain wrote: | But do you believe in free association? Is it okay that per | Parler's CEO, banks and payment providers, law firms, and mail | services have also cancelled on them? | eightysixfour wrote: | > I feel like we've all been a bit brainwashed by the | government in our notion that "free speech" must have limits. I | very much doubt that that is true. I think the speech part | should always be 100% free. | | I think you should be free to say what you want and to think | what you want, I also think a privately owned space has the | right to remove people who are saying things they don't want in | that space. | | Here are three examples: | | (1) You own a bar and someone comes in and starts calling your | patrons racial slurs, can you throw them out? | | (2) You start a social media company and somehow a large | contingent of your initial user group turns out to be a hate | group. Shouldn't you be allowed to remove the group and their | hateful content? Do you really want to be REQUIRED to leave it | on the site unless it is breaking a law? | | (3) You start a social media company and it grows to the size | of twitter. Your site is one of the most visited sites on the | internet, and is getting overrun with hate speech. Don't you | want to be able to remove that? | | Are you fine with one and two but not three? Where's the line? | If you want to argue that Facebook and Twitter are utilities | and should be regulated as such, what do they get in return? | Don't forget, utilities are often government sanctioned | monopolies or near-monopolies in "exchange" for all of their | regulation. | ng12 wrote: | Well it's been proven that at #3 your site has the ability | sway elections in democratic countries and help topple | authoritarian regimes. So yes, the line is somewhere between | #2 and #3. | the_other wrote: | Facebook isn't a utility, it's an ad platform. | Gibbon1 wrote: | (0) A large contingent of your user base is using your | service to conspire to overthrow the government. | chmod600 wrote: | It's complicated. If you own a giant bar, should you be able | to close down a tiny bar next door because there is hate | speech inside, because you happen to be friends with the | electric company? | | Parler wanted to open a new platform and attract its own | users. Only incidentally was it (like everything else these | days) dependent on a number of other services to work. | wedn3sday wrote: | Im not sure this is a good metaphor. None of Apple, Amazon, | or Google (no matter how hard they try) are social media | companies. None of them are in direct competition with | Parler, and shutting it down wont increase their market | share one iota. None of the social media companies are | banning people because of things they said on Parler, and I | doubt that the pressure applied to Apple/Amazon/Google came | from outside the companies, this is most likely the result | of engineers working on the AWS team pressuring their | bosses, and it snowballing. | cmiles74 wrote: | When Parler became a liability for any company associated | with it, to their shock, it turned out no company wanted to | be associated with it. In a world where people "vote with | their wallets" companies like Amazon, Google and Apple | would prefer to avoid giving people a reason to do just | that. | | I don't understand the shock and surprise. No US company is | going to choose anything over their own bottom line. | Certainly not for a site as small and niche and literally | riddled with hate speech as Parler. | | Parler and it's customers can say whatever they want to | whoever they want. Can they force Amazon to take their | money? Absolutely not. Should they be able to? No: forcing | Amazon to host Parler would be a violation of Amazon's own | right to free speech.[0] | | From Parler's point-of-view it would be unfortunate if they | tied themselves to AWS specific infrastructure. There's | absolutely no way that they now have some kind of "right" | to be hosted by Amazon. Also, it's just poor planning on | their part. | | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood | entropicdrifter wrote: | If you own a building and find out that the owners of a bar | that rents space in your building are allowing a terrorist | group to plan an insurrection, are you allowed to cancel | the lease and evict them? Sure seems like a breach of lease | to me. | stickfigure wrote: | A lease is just a contract. It can specify conditions for | termination. Without reading the contract, it's | impossible to know if it is being breached or not. | flerchin wrote: | It's a good analogy, and yes, criminal activity often | breaks your lease agreement. | throwawayboise wrote: | Yes, most likely. Eviction is a legal process, involving | the courts. Did that happen with Parler? | coryfklein wrote: | FTA | | > of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the | breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of | Parler | julienfr112 wrote: | They may mostly use Android Phone. Should we ban them for | Shops ? | mcguire wrote: | As of this Thursday, 82 people have been arrested, | according to one news report. | mcguire wrote: | Have you read the "lease" in question? | | https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/ | | https://aws.amazon.com/aup/ | | I suspect _Amazon_ is not the one to breach the lease. | ArtDev wrote: | I think this is a good analogy of where AWS sits here. | eightysixfour wrote: | > If you own a giant bar, should you be able to close down | a tiny bar next door because there is hate speech inside. | | No, and I didn't suggest that. | | > electric company | | Regulated. The electric company is a regulated monopoly. | Hosting companies aren't. If an ISP had banned traffic from | Parler, that would be an issue, it is a regulated monopoly. | If Amazon shuts them down, there's no issue, it is an | unregulated service provider. | happyrock wrote: | Thought exercise: what if say, Twitter, wanted to put one | of its competitors out of business, and decided to engage | in mass creation of accounts/content on that competing | platform with the intention of violating their ToS and | getting the platform kicked off of their hosting provider. | Is this a viable business strategy now? Heck, is this even | illegal? | [deleted] | jpeterson wrote: | Yes. Implicit in these "free speech" arguments is the idea | that the government should be able to force private companies | to publish user content that violates their policies. This is | the sort of thing that the 1st Amendment is actually supposed | to protect us from. | throwawayboise wrote: | In all the above cases (person spouting epithets at your | bar, social media users posting hate on your website) these | are people with whom you have no contract. They are there | at your permission, as long as they behave according to | your standards. | | When you rent space to someone, and they start using it in | a way you don't like, maybe even specificially violating | their lease, you can throw them out, but it becomes a legal | process called eviction. You can't just put their stuff on | the sidewalk and change the locks without going through | that process. This is how the game is played when you get | into that business. | | Maybe that is the part that's missing with the AWS/Parler | situation. AWS doesn't want them, but they leased space and | services to them and there is a contract. Breach of | contract is not something that either party to the contract | can determine, because they both have conflicts of | interest. If we had a judge review the contract, and | approve the eviction, at least there would be a lot less | basis to claim that are acting capriciously or out of bias. | d1zzy wrote: | > Curious if you feel torn supporting the US highway | infrastructure? It can clearly be used for to traffic drugs, | humans, blackmarket weapons, etc. It can be used to flee | justice, evade police, abets vehicular manslaughter, etc. The | list goes on and on. Is it even controversial to support the | highway system as is? Do we loose sleep over it? | | As we've learned from the now settled case law on Bittorrent | trackers & co, it is not sufficient for your infrastructure to | make it possible to support legal uses, it is necessary to show | that that is the vast majority of its uses. | mcguire wrote: | There are, and always have been, significant restrictions on | using the highway system. It's absolutely not unrestricted. | | There are limits. | simias wrote: | "Brainwashed" is not a very honest way to frame this | discussion. You can be convinced of something without being | brainwashed. | | I genuinely believe that free speech should have limits in | order to maintain the cohesion of our societies and protect | people from mobs. I don't think I've been brainwashed into it, | I've just seen what unbridled and unchecked hate speech can | lead to. | | Of course there's the problem of where the line should be drawn | and who should draw it, but in order to have this discussion we | need to move away from these strawmen (strawpersons?) and | accept that maybe people just have convictions they haven't | been brainwashed into. | | After all, I'm sure you wouldn't be very happy if I erected | billboards along the highway featuring hardcore pedopornography | with your faced photoshopped in. One way or an other we all | have limits to what we consider acceptable expression, it's all | about figuring out how this should be codified and enforced. | | And I want to add that having taboo topics and forms of | expression is probably a good thing overall. For our lives to | have meaning we need "sacred" things to protect, things to | fight against, things to think about. We need to be able to | shock, we need to be able to be transgressive, to make | revolutions and counter-revolutions, to express frustration. | etangent wrote: | > I genuinely believe that free speech should have limits in | order to maintain the cohesion of our societies and protect | people from mob | | Imagine saying this in June 2020 | simias wrote: | I'm not American and I don't have a strong opinion on the | events you refer to (I actually had to read the replies to | understand what you were getting at), so I definitely | would've told you exactly the same thing in June of 2020. | Feel free to ask me again whenever you see fit. | _vertigo wrote: | Could you explain what you mean by this? | j_walter wrote: | Protesting anything is fine. It's how far you take that | protest that is the problem. When does a protest become a | riot? | | When you block traffic? When you enter a secured space? | When you break into a federal building? When you set fire | to a federal building? When you set fire to cop cars? | When you break windows of local businesses? When you loot | local businesses? When you spray paint hate speech? When | you threaten cops families with death? When you throw | fireworks at people? When you throw Molotov cocktails at | people? | | These all occurred in large numbers during between the | death of George Floyd and the Capitol Riot. How many | times did big tech step and and stop the coordinating | efforts for those protests/riots? | adrian_b wrote: | I do not think that it is very hard to determine when a | protest becomes a riot, but I think that it is extremely | difficult to determine who is guilty for transforming a | protest into a riot. | | I have no idea about what has really happened last year | in USA, because the truth cannot be discovered just from | video transmissions at TV or on the Internet. | | Nevertheless, I have seen much more closely a large | number of peaceful protests in other countries, which | eventually became riots. | | However it became clear later, that in most or in all | cases, the transformation of the protests into riots was | done by undercover police agents or secret service | agents, who had infiltrated the protests and who had done | this in order to discredit the protests so that their | demands could be ignored and their organizers punished. | watwut wrote: | > These all occurred in large numbers during between the | death of George Floyd and the Capitol Riot. How many | times did big tech step and and stop the coordinating | efforts for those protests/riots? | | They did closed accounts that called for violence. I have | literally seen that. Both twitter and facebook. Not | perfectly, but they did not refused to delete tweets or | whole accounts. | kofejnik wrote: | https://twitter.com/adbusters/status/1288193793267625984 | is still up | | "On September 17, 2020 we will lay siege to The | @WhiteHouse for exactly fifty days. | | We need your wisdom and expertise to pull off a radically | democratic toneshift in our politics. | | Are you ready for #revolution? | | This is the #WhiteHouseSiege" | | 1k retweets | lwheelock wrote: | > Fifty days -- September 17th to November 3rd. > > Let | us once again summon the sweet, revolutionary nonviolence | that was our calling card in Zuccotti Park. | | If your stated intent explicitly calls for 'non- | violence', I expect this doesn't violate ToS despite | potential inferences from the sensational branding. | | I never heard of this before so I don't even know what | happened on Sept. 17. Was it violent? | weaksauce wrote: | because they didn't call for a violent overthrow of the | government but a peaceful jazz fest like they had 9 years | prior. they are calling for an occupy wallstreet 2.0 | | https://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/whitehousesiege- | tactical... | | the stuff that parler was leaving up was outright | sedition and calls for violence. | johnmaguire2013 wrote: | https://twitter.com/Adbusters/status/1289363787879915522 | | Doesn't seem they were advocating for violence. | j_walter wrote: | There are dozens of accounts for groups in Portland that | aren't specifically calling for violence because they use | code words. Despite violence happening constantly for 5+ | months at the events being organized... | | I haven't actually seen any proof that the Capitol riot | was anything other than a protest that got out of hand | (like what was described every time there was violence | and riots after BLM protests across the country). It only | takes a few dozen agitators to get a mob mentality going. | | Facebook suspended #WalkAway, a group of 500K people that | joined to support leaving the Democrats because they were | being alienated by their policies (their words, not | mine). No threats, no violence. Straight up deleted the | group with no recourse by the organizers. All Facebook | said was that the page allegedly ran afoul of "hateful, | threatening, or obscene" content, but no proof was | actually given. | | https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/8/brandon- | stra... | whimsicalism wrote: | Hm. I think a lot of people reasonably draw the line on | speech somewhere after the protests & property damage | that happened during 2020, but before action coordinated | to take control of the seat of government/potentially | kidnap or kill elected representatives. | neuland wrote: | Or, people are just inconsistent and not thinking about | things beyond their politics. | | People will praise the Arab Spring organizing on Twitter | without considering the implications for the events at | the Capital on Jan 6th. | | People are fine with Parler getting banned by all their | vendors for not moderating violence and threats. But | people would loose their minds if the same thing happened | to Facebook for their failure to moderate violence around | the Rohingyan genocide. | Apocryphon wrote: | It's been a decade, I think people's opinions of the Arab | Spring have been revised since then. The Arab Spring | worked out best for the actual country it originated in, | Tunisia. | caseysoftware wrote: | > _People will praise the Arab Spring organizing on | Twitter without considering the implications for the | events at the Capital on Jan 6th._ | | This is a great point. It's also key to consider that | some of the groups that praised the Arab Spring were the | Obama State Department which was led by Hillary Clinton | at the time. | | It appears the threshold is "support violent insurrection | in other countries but stamp out the discussion of it | here". | mcguire wrote: | Or, perhaps, "support violent insurrection after peaceful | protests against authoritarianism, human rights | violations, political corruption have failed, _when there | is no further peaceful opportunity for opposition._ " | | (The United States had an election, right? One with no | more than the usual, minor, issues, right? One where | legal actions were taken and weighed appropriately, | right? One where one specific loser seems only to be | complaining about losing, right? One where all of the | other contemporaneous votes were not objected to, right? | One that will be revisited in 2 to 4 years, right?) | caseysoftware wrote: | Serious question: Which of the lawsuits went into | discovery and were heard to weigh those claims? I'd love | to read the details as that could dispel rumors and bs. | garden_hermit wrote: | > People will praise the Arab Spring organizing on | Twitter without considering the implications for the | events at the Capital on Jan 6th. | | The reason why someone might hold these competing beliefs | is simple: they strongly value democratic institutions. | Violence, in the name of promoting democratic | institutions, and ideally expanding human rights, is | justifiable. Violence in the name of authoritarian | insurrection is not. | | Now, of course this gets really tricky, because many | people on Parler, and in the capitol riots, fully | believed that they were protecting democracy from massive | voter-fraud. No clear answer to address that issue, but | it is something that democratic societies will need to | reckon with. How does one preserve democratic ideals | (including promoting free speech, to whatever extent | possible), while still maintaining a healthy society that | doesn't tear itself apart? | ekianjo wrote: | But you know that people only think about the narrative. | If its BLM everything goes. If its the other side, its | evil, has to be stopped. And the best thing is that they | are completely oblivious to their double standards. | edmundsauto wrote: | That is one perspective, although it's very limited in | its nuance. A lot of people supported BLMs pre-violence | protests because they wanted police held accountable. And | a reasonable person can discuss whether the violence | would have escalated if the police hadn't been so | aggressive. | | Compare that to the Capitol insurrection, where the goal | was to overturn the results of an election. To overturn | the government. Where the people inciting the violence | were in the same tent. | | There was never good intent on the side of the | insurrection it's, and they escalated to violence on | their own. | jokethrowaway wrote: | Parent was obviously referring to the 34 deaths, theft, | forcing people to comply with the requests (raise your | first or face the mob) and millions of damage in private | property, due to the BLM rioting. | | Still, it's not relevant because they weren't exercising | freedom of speech, just incitement of violence. Same as | the people at the Capitol. | jacobolus wrote: | Your numbers are not reliable, and you should discount | whatever source you got them from. https://www.politifact | .com/factchecks/2020/aug/07/facebook-p... | | The large Black Lives Matter protests all over the | country were overwhelmingly lawful and peaceful. The main | exceptions were the scenes in many places of cops beating | the shit out of people, etc. | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/style/police-protests- | vid... | | In various cities a small number of people acted | violently. These were opportunists without apparent link | to the Black Lives Matter organizers who took advantage | of the situation to smash things up. Some were likely | sympathetic to the BLM message, but others have been | identified as far-right agitators. | https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who- | cause... https://www.justsecurity.org/70497/far-right- | infiltrators-an... | jokethrowaway wrote: | The only number I brought up is number of deaths which I | thought it was 34 from memory. | | I don't mind the people protesting peacefully, I'm | talking about the violent ones. | | Your fact checker doesn't report a number, some people | counted 36. Wikipedia reports 19+ deaths: https://en.wiki | pedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_dur... | | It's irrelevant. | | There was looting from stores, burning of buildings and | killings, surrounding people in restaurants and forcing | them to comply. | | You can call it a peaceful protest as much as you want | and you can link biased sources all day, but you won't | change facts. | [deleted] | jacobolus wrote: | Did you read your Wikipedia list? We have a whole bunch | of people shot by cops, a few looters shot by store | owners, people shot in unrelated murders that happened | near protests, people run over by cars that drove into | crowds, some people shot when groups of armed racists | started gunfights with groups of armed antiracists, etc. | | This list does not at all support the thesis that | organized BLM protests were intentionally violent. | | * * * | | Yeah, there was a time that a group of white BLM | sympathizers heckled another white BLM sympathizer who | was eating at a restaurant table on the sidewalk, and the | heckling was caught on video. The people involved are | obnoxious jerks (organizers and most others in the BLM | movement also agree they are jerks). | | Similar heckling by all sorts of groups of jerks happens | all over the country on a regular basis. For example a | bunch of MAGA folks were following and heckling Lindsay | Graham at an airport a few days ago. | | But you really think heckling at a restaurant should be | compared to an armed mob breaking into the Capitol | building, chanting for the Vice President's execution and | for the overthrow of the US government, beating cops to | death, ransacking offices, stealing sensitive national | security materials, and literally shitting all over? | optical wrote: | > This list does not at all support the thesis that | organized BLM protests were intentionally violent. | | Are you really claiming there was never any incitement? | | This popped up with one search: | https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-leader-if-change- | doesnt-ha... | | "If this country doesn't give us what we want, then we | will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And | I could be speaking figuratively. I could be speaking | literally. It's a matter of interpretation," | jacobolus wrote: | The implication is that the nationwide (and worldwide) | Black Lives Matter protest marches in wake of George | Floyd's death should have been prevented and their | communications shut down, because the grandparent poster | thinks that protesting police brutality and murder is | illegitimate, but storming the US Capitol with the stated | goal of overthrowing the government and extrajudicially | executing the Vice President is just fine. | watwut wrote: | Conservative groups still exist outside Parler. And they | can and do coordinate there. | | The same platforms were closing accounts calling for | violence and preparing it during BLM protests. The | difference is that while people on Parler claim that | violent subgroups don't represent all Trump supporters, | platforms that don't allow calls for violence are not | good for them. | bitstan wrote: | > it's all about figuring out how this should be codified and | enforced. | | Democratically maybe? | | Don't we have an entire police state apparatus to monitor the | public and snoop on bad hombres? Why should Silicon Valley | play the roll of unelected police-state. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_center | | Brainwashed is the perfect term to describe the cognitive | dissonance and mental gymnastics required to adopt | authoritarian and undemocratic ideals to "combat fascism". | | > For our lives to have meaning we need "sacred" things to | protect, things to fight against, things to think about | | Like blasphemy laws? Brain. Washed. | pkulak wrote: | > mental gymnastics required to adopt authoritarian and | undemocratic ideals to "combat fascism". | | It is a paradox, after all. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance | dragonwriter wrote: | > Democratically maybe? | | But...we did that. And the answer arrived out through | representative democracy thus far is: | | (1) For matters where no legal liability, or only civil | liability (except for sex trafficking, and copyright law | which has its own special rules) would be involved, mostly | leave it up to the free discretion of each online provider | to determine and address unwelcome content. | | (2) a whole bunch of crime-specific rules in criminal law, | including (relevant to recent events) an absolute | prohibition against knowingly providing any good or service | (with narrow medical and religious exceptions) that will be | used in "terrorism" offenses. | simondw wrote: | > Why should Silicon Valley play the roll of unelected | police-state. | | Since when is a corporation deciding not to do business | with someone equivalent to throwing them in prison? | rsync wrote: | "Of course there's the problem of where the line should be | drawn and who should draw it" | | That's not "a problem", that's _the only problem_. | | Of course hatred and bigotry and false scientific claims and | calls to violence, etc., are negative and of course we wish | they would vanish. | | But a _Ministry of Truth_ would be worse. | | I am willing to build and maintain mental, emotional and | psychological armor against very negative, harmful speech if | it helps avoid erecting a Ministry of Truth. | adrian_b wrote: | The belief that free speech must have limits is necessarily | equivalent with the belief that a large part of the people | are stupid and they must be protected by the smart people by | preventing them to hear anything that might influence their | feeble minds and make them act in a wrong way. | | Maybe this belief about most people being stupid is correct, | therefore free speech must indeed be limited, but I do not | see any of the advocates of limiting free speech having the | courage to tell what they really think in the face of those | whom they want to protect. | offby37years wrote: | This is correct. You can't have democracy without free | speech. If you don't trust your fellow citizens to be able | to deduce the truth, you shouldn't trust them to cast their | own vote. | mlyle wrote: | You need free speech, but you don't need free | coordination of violence by those rejecting discourse. | offby37years wrote: | In attempt to curtail the latter you forgo the former. | dagw wrote: | _You can 't have democracy without free speech._ | | So are countries that have more limits on free speech | than what the US has, less democratic than the US? | adrian_b wrote: | There are no single criteria that can be used to judge | how democratic a country is. | | Many European countries have more restrictions on free | speech than USA, so yes, they are less democratic by this | criterion. | | By other criteria, e.g. by evaluating how many abusive | laws they have that favor a few rich individuals that own | some large companies against the majority of the | citizens, most European countries are more democratic | than USA. | | The same conclusion comes from other criteria, like how | easy is for most citizens to access education or health | services. | modriano wrote: | > If you don't trust your fellow citizens to be able to | deduce the truth... | | Do you trust people who live in an echo chamber overrun | with disinformation to deduce the truth about the outcome | of the US election? If so, can you speak to the mechanism | by which such people can determine the truth? And could | you speak to the empirical failure of this population to | discover the truth? | offby37years wrote: | With almost every technological advance, destructive | power arrives long before the protective powers. It's | much easier to destroy something with a nuclear weapon | than it is to build a nuclear power plant. Likewise, we | arrived at muskets before the combustion engine. | Disinformation is much cheaper (and profitable for media | companies surviving on outrage driven clicks) than | delivering self-verifiable empirical information. This | will change in time. | adrian_b wrote: | Yes, you are right. | | This is the most unfortunate consequence of the idea that | free speech must be limited. | | If it is accepted that a part of the people cannot be | trusted to not do wrong things when others tell them to | do so, then an unavoidable consequence is that to that | part of the people the right to vote must also be denied, | because if they may be convinced by lies to do very wrong | things, like violence, then it is even more certain that | they will be easily convinced by lies to do a minor | mistake, like casting a wrong vote. | | Any proposal to deny the right of voting to stupid | people, or to give different weight to the votes, | depending on the "intelligence" of the voters, would | rightly generate huge protests. | | However, any proposal to restrict the free speech without | also restricting the right to vote is logically | inconsistent, even if many seem to not notice this. | phs318u wrote: | > but I do not see any of the advocates of limiting free | speech having the courage to tell what they really think in | the face of those whom they want to protect. | | It's not them I want to protect (though I don't have any | explicit desire for them to _not_ be protected). It's me I | want to protect. Your right to swing your fists ends at the | tip of my nose, and your right to yell "Fire!" or "Stop the | steal" or "Storm the Bastille!" are likewise constrained | when they infringe on my rights. | | The practical implementation and realisation of rights is | always a trade-off of rights vs rights. What is under | discussion is where the balance of those trade-offs lay. | | Having said that, there is a very strong case to be made | that we need to address people's propensity to listen to, | invest in, and act on, obvious bullshit (e.g. flat- | earthers, reptilians etc). More than education is required. | My brother-in-law - a highly functioning, tertiary educated | small business owner and nice guy - is a dyed-in-the-wool | conspiracist, believing the most outrageous things. Having | a rational discussion with him has not budged him from his | beliefs one iota. I believe it's a psychological condition | as common as depression or anxiety. | | There are no easy answers nor quick fixes for this problem. | glogla wrote: | I'm not sure you have actually shown the equivalency. | | But if you did, how is that different from worker | protections or consumer protections or environmental | protections or mandatory seatbelt or million other laws? | claudiawerner wrote: | >The belief that free speech must have limits is | necessarily equivalent with the belief that a large part of | the people are stupid and they must be protected by the | smart people by preventing them to hear anything that might | influence their feeble minds and make them act in a wrong | way. | | I don't see why this is true; intelligent people can be | harmed by speech just as much as stupid people can. | _Everyone_ can certainly be harmed by the immediate follow- | on effects of speech. Some words can harm in a way it is | unreasonable to expect guard against, or those for which it | is impossible to guard against. | | The scholarly literature on speech, harm, and legality has | dozens of such examples. | | >but I do not see any of the advocates of limiting free | speech having the courage to tell | | I can courageously say now that I'm not in favor of | restrictions on speech for reasons of "stupidity" but | rather the demonstrable harm speech can cause. | JeremyNT wrote: | > _Maybe this belief about most people being stupid is | correct, therefore free speech must indeed be limited, but | I do not see any of the advocates of limiting free speech | having the courage to tell what they really think in the | face of those whom they want to protect._ | | Maybe people don't actually espouse that stated position | because it's a strawman. | | Intelligent people can be fooled and manipulated without | being stupid - they have been for ages. What's different | _now_ is the speed and concentration of misinformation. | | Platforms of mass misinformation and manipulation are | curious beasts, and susceptibility to radicalization != | stupidity. Something somewhat novel appears to be happening | due the new ways we communicate, and it's not unreasonable | to suggest that "something" should be done about it. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | And of course, those advocating limiting speech are sure | that _they_ are not among the stupid. They 're always | advocating limiting someone else's speech, not their own, | because they're _smart_ people who are not fooled by the | wrong things, and who listen to and believe the _right_ | things. | chopin24 wrote: | >The belief that free speech must have limits is | necessarily equivalent with the belief that a large part of | the people are stupid and they must be protected by the | smart people by preventing them to hear anything that might | influence their feeble minds and make them act in a wrong | way. | | You're leaving out some very well-established restrictions | on free speech, including slander, libel, copyright | infringement, obscenity, privacy violation... in short, | absolutism hasn't been a prevailing philosophy for | centuries. This sudden resurgence of it feels like a | refusal to engage with the very real, very difficult debate | on what speech deserves censorship. | | It doesn't have anything at all to do with intelligence, | but the observed consequences of certain kinds of speech. | Lies, for example, that manipulate peoples' emotions. This | is not unique to "stupid people." | adrian_b wrote: | Some other poster already mentioned that what you list | are actions that are punishable by various laws, at least | in most countries. | | There is a huge difference between punishing someone for | something already done, e.g. slander or libel, and | denying him access to publication media because you | believe that in the future that person might say | something that might have who knows what effect on other | people, who might do some crimes. | | I completely agree that whoever abuses the free speech | right to do something punishable by law must be judged | and punished if found guilty. | | On the other hand, I do not agree with any of these | "deplatforming" actions based on vague beliefs about the | future actions of some people. | | If Trump or anyone else is expected to do a speech crime, | then watch him and, as soon as he does that, fine him or | arrest him. | | If he already did such a crime, then also fine him or | arrest him. | | Otherwise, "deplatforming" him has no basis in facts. | rileymat2 wrote: | > denying him access to publication media because you | believe that in the future that person might say | something that might have who knows what effect on other | people, who might do some crimes. | | Is this the case here? | | The statements in question are already made. Typically, | the deplatforming happens after a violation has already | been made. Which seems to be the case here, unless I am | misunderstanding. | mlyle wrote: | I think it just comes down to Popper, who puts it elegantly | enough: | | > ... In this formulation, 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. | adnzzzzZ wrote: | >The hobbit is simply embarrassed into compliance by his | elven betters. The ideas he believes become a dangerous | mental disease. This diagnosis is written into history. | The sooner he gives up this nonsense, the better. To help | convince him, we'll make this idea quasi-illegal. The | sooner he gives it up, the less his life will suffer. | Eventually he can be fired for staying an idiot. Everyone | will agree that he deserved it. | | >This is Popper's paradox of tolerance. Popper discovers | that every real regime must have the apparatus of the | Inquisition in its back pocket. If it hesitates to deploy | its intellectual rack and thumbscrew, it will be replaced | by a regime with no such qualms. | | >Popper, read logically, advises the Nazis to repress the | Communists, the Communists to repress the Nazis, the | liberals to repress both and both to repress the | liberals. From his "open society" he comes all the way | around to Hobbes, Schmitt and Machiavelli. Next he will | tell us, in Esperanto, that "the earth is nothing but a | vast bloody altar." | | I think Moldbug reads Popper much more elegantly. | https://graymirror.substack.com/p/vae-victis | [deleted] | mlyle wrote: | Poorly, you mean, because Popper asserts (as I quoted | before): | | ...as long as we can counter them by rational argument | and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression | would certainly be most unwise... | | It's only when the other side has abandoned discourse and | is interested in meeting you with force that tolerance is | to be abandoned. | ogogmad wrote: | Popper's point is that if someone wants to curtail your | right to free speech, you have the right to curtail | theirs. On the other hand, if a political opponent | respects your right to speak freely, you should do the | same for them. It's not really a paradox; it's about | symmetry. | | By analogy, imagine if someone commits murder. Would | putting them to death as punishment also be murder? No. | You have the right to life as long as you respect other | people's right to the same. | Knufen wrote: | The problems always begins with grey and ends in black. | Who defines when, where and how someone is curtailing | their right to free speech? There is always asymmetry in | power. | FuckButtons wrote: | I don't agree, perfectly rational otherwise smart people | can be duped by lies, to suggest otherwise is to deny the | evidence of the entire advertising industries existence. We | need to protect everyone from predatory actors, propaganda | and lies irrespective of their intellect because we are all | susceptible. | nec4b wrote: | And who will do the protecting if we are all susceptible? | You? | leetcrew wrote: | > Maybe this belief about most people being stupid is | correct, therefore free speech must indeed be limited, but | I do not see any of the advocates of limiting free speech | having the courage to tell what they really think in the | face of those whom they want to protect. | | I don't know about this part. the narrative seems to be | more about protecting the vulnerable from the stupid, not | so much protecting the stupid from themselves. | adrian_b wrote: | Nobody can be so vulnerable to the words of other people | that they will do obviously bad things, unless they are | stupid. | | Normal people are vulnerable to lies only in the sense | that when presented with deliberately false information | that they cannot verify immediately, they may trust the | liar and make a wrong decision to do something that they | cannot know yet whether it is right or wrong, e.g. buying | something cheap for a high price or being the victim for | another kind of fraud. | | Only someone stupid will beat someone or burn a house | because of some false accusations. | | All the arguments for these deplatforming actions were | that the people, who would have heard the propaganda of | those to whom the access is denied now, would have been | easily convinced to do stupid things. | jokethrowaway wrote: | Free speech doesn't need limits. | | Inciting violence, endangering someone with false speech, | committing fraud: they're already a crime and they're not | covered by free speech. | colinmhayes wrote: | The problem is people are idiots who will believe someone | who calls themself Q and claims the deep state is trying to | take down the president. Once you convince people of that | you don't need to use illegal speech to inspire violence, | they're already inspired. | adrian_b wrote: | I completely agree. | | However, I want to repeat what I have already replied to | another similar post. | | All these speech crimes should be punished according to the | law, as soon as they are committed. | | Restricting the speech of someone, by denying access to | publication media, just because it is believed that they | might commit some speech crime in the future, that is | clearly an arbitrary and baseless restriction of the free | speech right. | simias wrote: | If you want to frame it that way then fine by me: "there | are no limits to free speech, but there are limits to what | can be described as free speech". I'd argue that it's | effectively exactly the same problematic seen from a | slightly different angle. | | Saying things like "I support Nazis" could be considered a | valid political opinion protected by free speech in some | countries and illegal hate speech in others. | hctaw wrote: | Those are examples of limiting of free speech | | edit: it seems people have misunderstood my comment to take | a position. I' m taking issue with the idea that "free | speech doesn't need limits" followed by a listing of limits | applied to free speech. If we can't agree that there even | exists such limits and that perhaps they're necessary any | discussion below is fruitless. | coryfklein wrote: | I think parent was pointing out that the question of | "where should the line be drawn and who should draw it" | has _already_ been settled. Those things are _already | illegal_ , so we don't need to impose further | restrictions on speech in order to prevent those things. | claudiawerner wrote: | >the question of "where should the line be drawn and who | should draw it" has already been settled | | I think it should at least be a line open to challenge | without being accused of being brainwashed. If that line | cannot be questioned, we're skating on dogmatism. There | are very few good reasons for a special guarantee of free | speech (versus, say, a special guarantee to be able to | eat fries) which stand up to closer scrutiny. | | The only convincing reason for a constitutional guarantee | to freedom of speech is mistrust in the government, but | again, that depends where you draw the line. Food | regulation is arguably just as important in our lives, | but few mistrust the FDA as to call for its abolition, or | propose a constitutional amendment banning all regulation | of foods. | | This isn't a matter of what the law _is_ , it's a matter | of what the law _should be_ - whether it 's a | constitutional law or not. | ardy42 wrote: | > I think parent was pointing out that the question of | "where should the line be drawn and who should draw it" | has already been settled. Those things are already | illegal, so we don't need to impose further restrictions | on speech in order to prevent those things. | | I'm skeptical that such a line can ever be truly | "settled." Sure, it can be settled in a particular social | and technological context, but when those latter things | change, the line may need to be adjusted. | coryfklein wrote: | See Trope 9: "This speech may be protected for now, but | the law is always changing." | | TLDR: yeah, the law _can_ change, but it 's highly | unlikely because "the United States Supreme Court has | been more consistently protective of free speech than of | any other right, especially in the face of media | sensibilities about "harmful" words" | | [1] https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and- | critique-... | ardy42 wrote: | > See Trope 9: "This speech may be protected for now, but | the law is always changing." | | It's worth noting that _no_ legally forbidden censorship | has been happening with regards to the recent | insurrection against congress. | | > TLDR: yeah, the law can change, but it's highly | unlikely because "the United States Supreme Court has | been more consistently protective of free speech than of | any other right, especially in the face of media | sensibilities about "harmful" words" | | But that's not a fixed fact of nature, it's a reaction to | a particular social and technological context. | | For instance, if someone discovers an idea instantly | turns 10% those who hear it into murderous zealots (sort | of like the poem in "The Tyranny of Heaven" by Stephen | Baxter), that idea is going to censored _hard_ and the | Supreme Court will be like "Yup, ban it." | | Likewise, if some social change or technology renders the | legal regime that the Supreme Court has created a cause | of serious dysfunction, then Supreme Court is going to | have to change that regime to accommodate. Idealism's | great, but not when it doesn't work. | coryfklein wrote: | > _no_ legally forbidden censorship has been happening | with regards to the recent insurrection against congress. | | Yes, this is true as far as I am aware as well. But I | find myself in a conundrum; had this "inciting" speech | taken place in the town square or a public park, much of | it likely could not have been censored because it would | have been protected by the 1st amendment and the last 100 | years of case law. Where, then, is the town square and | public park of 2021? | | Despite the fact that the legal protections of public | speech haven't changed much in decades, the _practical_ | protections of public speech (as I discuss in greater | detail in [1]) have indeed been eroded, because social | media platforms and, apparently, web hosting and device | makers are now the arbiters of the vast majority of | speech. Free speech that only applies where virtually | noone can hear you is a very limited free speech indeed. | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662466 | allturtles wrote: | The town squares and public parks are still there. | | The existence of Twitter, Facebook, etc. have accustomed | people to the ability to air their opinions globally free | of charge, however that is a very novel phenomenon. It's | hard for me, having come of age in the 1980s/1990s, to | see this as an inalienable right. | option wrote: | no it is not. Saying "covid is a hoax" should be | protected by free speech because it is an expression of | (stupidly false) opinion. Saying "we storm Capiton at | 8:00am on Jan 6" is a call to violent action, not an | idea, thought, or opinion and obviously must be taken | down ASAP | hctaw wrote: | All speech is free speech. Avoid hyperbole here because | it doesn't help. Your examples both kinds of speech that | people think should be limited, trying to discard one as | _not speech_ rather than focusing at hand on _what speech | should be limited_ does nothing but rile up those that | disagree with your examples. | ardy42 wrote: | > no it is not. Saying "covid is a hoax" should be | protected by free speech because it is an expression of | (stupidly false) opinion. | | But I shouldn't be obligated to let someone put a sign | saying that on my lawn, nor should I be obligated to | remain friends with someone who is pushing that lie. | | Most of the people who are complaining about free speech | being limited are really arguing for things like the | above. | foolinaround wrote: | yes, but then you don't get covered under section 230, | because you are actively making judgement calls, and | therefore, should be liable for those. | tstrimple wrote: | That's really not how Section 230 works. | | https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/he | llo... | foolinaround wrote: | this link clarified some things for me,thanks | chc wrote: | Whatever news source you heard talking about section 230, | you should stop trusting it, because they are actively | misinforming you. | ericd wrote: | You preventing signs on your lawn are fine, you | preventing specific messages on systemically important | communications infrastructure you happen to own is not. | It's the same reason that AT&T was heavily regulated back | when it carried 90% of telecom traffic and before it was | ultimately broken up via antitrust. | | You running a corner store the way you want is fine, you | running the only store in the country the way you want is | not. | ardy42 wrote: | > You preventing signs on your lawn are fine, you | preventing specific messages on systemically important | communications infrastructure you happen to own is not. | It's the same reason that AT&T was heavily regulated back | when it carried 90% of telecom traffic and before it was | ultimately broken up via antitrust. | | You know, you don't need AWS to run a website, right? | Similarly, newspapers have often been local monopolies, | but as far as I know, they've always been able to decline | to publish a letter to the editor. | | Whoever wants to stick a sign on my lawn is going to come | up with some rationale to force me to do it, but that | doesn't mean it holds any water. | majormajor wrote: | We got to the latter because of years and years of the | former. | | "You're allowed to talk people into believing that they | need to violently rebel, but you're not allowed to | actually do the rebelling" is not a particularly | reasonable position. | avgDev wrote: | I'm working on a blog, where users will post about their | experience with a particular drug and its side effects. | Since, I am paying for hosting and I created the blog, I | will NOT allow any pseudo science. Am I limiting free | speech? No. | | There is a good reason twitter, facebook, youtube does | remove certain content. They have the right to remove | whatever they want. | option wrote: | do you think your water and energy utilities should be | free to decide whether to serve your house or not? | kolinko wrote: | +1. | | If someone publishes fake news about vaccines, it takes a | lot of effort then for people to keep explaining to other | people how this is not true. It is harmful to society, | and unfair - it takes less time to invent a new hoax than | to fact-check it. | | Just like loitering on the ground is considered an | offence, so should be publishing fake news. It doesn't | hurt one person, but it hurts society. | | There also are objective criteria for determining if | something is fake or not - so it is possible to create | laws that forbid it and don't limit a freedom of opinion. | silexia wrote: | Why is everyone debating on whether they should be limits | on free speech when that is irrelevant? Free speech is | something provided by the government, not by private | companies. Any private company, such as a restaurant, can | throw you out for any reason outside of discriminating | against a protected class. | | What seems to be under attack here is the right of | individual companies and people to decide who they wish | to work with. Everyone who is criticizing big tech for | choosing not to work with certain people is forgetting | that that same principle can be applied to them. Do you | want to be forced to work with companies you abhor? | dragonwriter wrote: | > Why is everyone debating on whether they should be | limits on free speech when that is irrelevant? | | It's not irrelevant. | | > What seems to be under attack here is the right of | individual companies and people to decide who they wish | to work with. | | To the extent that that is based on expressive | preference, that is an aspect of free speech, and the | closely-related right of free association. | | Limiting that right is limiting free speech. | edmundsauto wrote: | On the other hand, forcing a platform to allow expression | they disagree with is limiting their free speech to not | amplify something. | dragonwriter wrote: | That's not the other hand, that's what I was saying in | GP. | zaroth wrote: | I agree that this is a limit on corporations' free | speech. Monopolistic corporations do have a well founded | legal limit to their free speech rights. | | For example, it's a form of free speech for Microsoft to | decide how they write their own software. One of those | decisions was to bundle a free web browser in with their | OS and tie the OS function tightly together with that | browser. Microsoft Corporation was almost broken up by | the government because they did that. | | The issue that Greenwald is raising is similarly rooted | in anti-trust; | | > _If one were looking for evidence to demonstrate that | these tech behemoths are, in fact, monopolies that engage | in anti-competitive behavior in violation of antitrust | laws, and will obliterate any attempt to compete with | them in the marketplace, it would be difficult to imagine | anything more compelling than how they just used their | unconstrained power to utterly destroy a rising | competitor._ | | Freedom of speech is not absolute. Just like individuals' | free speech rights have limits such as incitement to | violence, corporations also have limits to their "free | speech" rights based in anti-trust law and anti- | racketeering laws in how they can attack potential | competitors. | wutbrodo wrote: | > What seems to be under attack here is the right of | individual companies and people to decide who they wish | to work with. Everyone who is criticizing big tech for | choosing not to work with certain people is forgetting | that that same principle can be applied to them. Do you | want to be forced to work with companies you abhor? | | You mention protected classes in your first paragraph, | but then act like it's self-evident that it's bad to | "force people to work with (and serve) people they | abhor". What else is the concept of a protected class if | not this? | | It's clear that we already don't have full freedom of | association, and the question is where the line should be | drawn. When people talk about big tech regulation, it's | undergirded by many of these platforms' unique amount of | market power. This isn't a novel concept; utility | companies are an example of a natural monopoly: | benefiting from scale, considered critical | infrastructure, and legally prohibited from cutting off | power to its customers, even if they don't like their | politics. The topic under discussion here is whether the | "new public square" (or things like payment | infrastructure!) are considered critical enough to | society that we want to protect access to them. | | I'm constitutionally (not "Constitutionally") disinclined | against ill-considered regulation, and most of the | conversation by government about tech regulation is | pants-on-head stupid. But the dissonance between the two | paras in your comment are a good indication that this | discussion isn't nearly as simple as you're framing it. | mkolodny wrote: | > The topic under discussion here is whether the "new | public square" (or things like payment infrastructure!) | are considered critical enough to society that we want to | protect access to them. | | That's one core question. Another is whether it should be | up to these companies to police their own platforms. | Inciting violence is illegal. They're banning people and | platforms inciting violence. | | "Repeal section 230" seems to be about making these | companies responsible for policing their own platforms. | When people incited violence/genocide on Facebook in | Myanmar, some people held Facebook partially responsible. | Now, there are people are inciting violence on Facebook | in the US, and it's still an open question whether | Facebook should be held liable. | disgruntledphd2 wrote: | When people incited violence/genocide on <radio> in | Myanmar, some people held <radio> partially responsible. | Now, there are people are inciting violence on <radio> in | the US, and it's still an open question whether <radio> | should be held liable. | | There are important differences, but the parallels | between the Rwandan genocide and the growth of talk radio | in the US in the 90's have always struck me as | interesting. | | That being said, I think that the new public square | argument is strong, and if we're going to have internet | monopolies, then they probably need to be regulated | similarly to the utilities. | | Alternatively, they can be broken up. I don't think the | current state is sustainable over the longer term. | brlewis wrote: | > Free speech is something provided by the government, | not by private companies | | It is not _provided_ by the government. Congress is | prohibited from passing laws that abridge freedom of | speech; Congress is not the fountain that free speech | springs from. | | It is perfectly relevant to discuss freedom of speech in | contexts where someone else might be doing the abridging | besides the U.S. Congress. | bee_rider wrote: | It isn't _really_ free speech, you are right. It is more | of an anti-trust issue, that a couple companies could get | together to completely ban another one. We should | consider if too much power has been concentrated in the | hands of a few tech companies, if essentially their | content moderation policies can so easily be | misinterpreted as free speech issues. | | That the outcome here is banning a community that was | apparently mostly used for hate speech (never actually | checked it out) is... maybe a red herring? I mean, they | obviously didn't build these massive companies with the | primary goal of banning niche hateful websites. | | If we were to, say, break up social media and internet | infrastructure giants, then this sort of website would | probably be able to persist by hopping from host to host | until they found one without any morals. But could | consider if losing the ability to perform this kind of | deplatforming would be worth it, in exchange for a much | more competitive marketplace. | | I think it is actually a really tricky situation. | silexia wrote: | Keep in mind that sites like parler are not actually | banned. They could simply hook up their own computer to | the internet and run their site if they wished. No one | has some natural right to be able to use a convenient | service like AWS. And if AWS refuses to do business with | you, there are hundreds of other hosting companies that | you can choose from. | | Ultimately, if not one of the hundreds of hosting | companies out there wants to work with you, that should | be a very strong indication that the community is not | something we want. But if you really really want this | community anyways, just hook up your computer to an | internet connection and host the site yourself. | throwawayboise wrote: | So when a politician or pundit cherry-picks one sentence | out of a larger statement and spins that to imply | something other than what the speaker meant, perhaps even | the complete opposite of what he meant, is that "fake | news" or is that "opinion?" And who decides? | mcguire wrote: | How do you suggest prosecuting those crimes? | | If I threaten to kill you, or commit fraud, in person, you | call the police, give them what information you have about | me, and ideally I get a knock on the door. If I do it | online, well, you don't have much recourse. | [deleted] | adrian_b wrote: | If the author of such an online message cannot be | identified, then the recourse is what is already common | practice, to delete the offending message or possibly to | replace the deceiving information with correct | information. | | If the author can be identified, which is frequently | true, then it should be the same for online as for in | person. | gyudin wrote: | Not American per se, but free speech has limits. People | breaking the law should be prosecuted in courts. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | Unlike the US highway system, Parler was specifically set up to | encourage - or at least provide a haven for - insidious | planning and hatred. So I don't see how your argument is | convincing. | | Would you feel the same way if it had been Muslim terrorists in | camo storming the Capitol, and they had organised on a Muslim | site? | | Because no matter how this is being spun, that is literally | comparable to what happened last week. | ian-g wrote: | Would the highway not be better equated to the internet itself? | | With AWS, Google Play store, iOS store as toll roads | (Pennsylvania Turnpike, Golden Gate Bridge etc...) and Parler, | Facebook, HN etc... as car brands? | | Manufacturers can be forced to take all of their cars off the | road for repair. Take Toyota or Waze. | | You might have an argument about iOS taking Parler off the | store as an issue because you can't sideload, but you can | directly install APKs onto Android. You can self-host Parler | with physical servers. I guess I'm less bothered by this than a | lot of folks cause one of my rules is basically "Be nice around | other people's things and ask before you touch". AWS and the | Android + iOS stores are other people's things. And Parler | poked at a sore spot: being used to plan attacks | dang wrote: | This was a reply to | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25748129 but I've detached | this massive subthread in an attempt to spare our poor server. | yes, we're working on it | cynusx wrote: | In europe, we long accepted that uncensored talk of hate speech | which in practice is almost always racial hatred will lead to | the eventual overthrow of democracies and therefore deserve to | be censored. | | Is preserving democracy worth putting limits on free speech? | I'd argue absolutely. People are animals. | ppeetteerr wrote: | "Yet American liberals swoon for this authoritarianism" you had | me up to this point. Liberals don't swoon for this any more than | they do for a mandatory curfew to curb coronavirus cases. The | powers of SV are a lot and I would hope that out of the ashes of | the last four years we get a) a more progressive Conservative | party and b) a more diversified collection of service providers, | to combat AWS, and the like. | | All of these companies, for what it's worth, seems to only use | their power when its socially acceptable. For instance, they | continue to abide by restrictive Chinese laws for the benefit of | money. I'm convinced they will submit to the will of the state in | Poland as well, where freedom of speech appears to mean something | entirely different. | mattbee wrote: | How this cesspool got built is a metaphor for the wingnuts who | used it. | | Most of us here know - if you want a resilient, censorship-free | service, you can still: buy your own physical servers, rent data | centre space (or a garage), buy multiple transit pipes to ensure | traffic can get to them from a variety of places. You can move | your servers around if you have to and keep your sovereignty | despite everything else changing. It's how the internet was | designed! Amazon, Google, Apple and most other private companies | can go whistle if they want you offline. | | Sure it takes expertise, time, expense, negotiation... but that's | the price of true freedom, internet patriots! | | Instead they built everything on top of the conveniences and | goodwill of a single US company, with no backup plan. Hardly | living in the wild west - and that's this mob down to a tee. | Rich, well-connected dorks who desperately _need_ the society | they organise to tear down - why be surprised when the society | hits back in such a tiny way as terminating their AWS account? | | If this is censorship, I'm a bowl of noodle soup. | fasdf1122 wrote: | just admit it, you're a closet racist. | ppeetteerr wrote: | Reminds me of all the libertarians who flocked to Bitcoin | because it was considered a way to circumvent the government, | and then realized that a) you need governments to run the | pipes, b) much of the mining is done by conglomerates and c) | the unregulated market is about as stable as a ship at sea | seanyesmunt wrote: | This is being worked on | | https://www.coindesk.com/gotenna-bitcoin-wallet-mesh-network | mattbee wrote: | Downvotes? _raises fist to sky_ This is censorshiiiiip!!1! | throwawaygulf wrote: | If Rosa Parks didn't like sitting in the back of the bus, she | could have just started her own bus line! | | If GMC wouldn't sell her a bus, she could just make her own! | | Sure it takes expertise, time, expense, negotiation... but | that's the price of true freedom! | | Before anyone comes crying: I in no way support the assault on | the Capitol, calls to violence (which should be illegal), alt- | right ethno-state madness, Qanon delusions etc. Nazism is a | cancer on society. | badRNG wrote: | There is a significant difference between refusing business | on the basis of race (which is rightfully a protected status) | and refusing business with a platform that hosts far-right | content. This particular example, comparing the far-right to | Rosa Parks, is especially distasteful. | picklesman wrote: | You are comparing literal Nazis who are calling for | insurrection and murder to someone peacefully fighting | _against_ oppression. | throwawaygulf wrote: | >You are comparing literal Nazis | | Literal Nazis?! Wow! Didn't know there were that many | National Socialist German Workers' Party members in the US | in 2021! | | Those freedom fighters mostly peacefully protested at the | Capitol to fight against tyranny and literal communism! /s | ipsum2 wrote: | Buses are considered public transit in most areas, not | private. Also, discrimination against race is illegal, unlike | calling for violence. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | In the USA, there are many kinds busses that are not public | transit. Greyhound and Trailways were historically the most | famous, but there are still lots of long and intermediate | distance services (i.e. not just shuttling you around a | town) that are still completely private bus services. | Today, Megabus and Bolt would be contemporary examples. | They are subject to some regulation as a kind of "public | transportation", but their services, facilities, investment | and staff are in any significant way controlled by | governments. | neaden wrote: | But the segregation of bus lines was mandated by law in | Alabama at the time, so it was a government action. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Indeed. I was just trying to clarify the public/private | status of bus lines in the US, particularly for non-US | readers. | titzer wrote: | > If Rosa Parks didn't like sitting in the back of the bus, | | Buses are run by governments. And Rosa Parks wasn't | advocating throwing molotov cocktails at bus drivers, she sat | in the wrong damn seat in an act of _civil disobedience_. | | > If GMC wouldn't sell her a bus, | | It'd be great if GMC would refuse selling vehicles to | insurrectionist militias, IMHO. | | Your analogies aren't doing any good here. | tim44 wrote: | > Rosa Parks wasn't advocating throwing molotov cocktails | at bus drivers, she sat in the wrong damn seat in an act of | civil disobedience. | | Agreed. But because some others didn't take her approach to | civils rights, but were violent, why should she be | canceled? It would be interesting to ask people at that | time in history whether they saw her actions as violence or | inciting violence. I bet the answer is a big ol' yes. I bet | even many thought it was inciting the overthrow | society/government. | Craighead wrote: | Cancelled != civil disobedience | | Everything else in your response is bad faith | peytn wrote: | I believe the bus was operated by National City Lines. | Could be wrong. | inscionent wrote: | "The Montgomery City Lines is sorry if anyone expects us | to be exempt from any state or city law ... [w]e are | sorry that the colored people blame us for any state or | city ordinance which we didn't have passed." | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines | peytn wrote: | They were free to not do business with the city of | Montgomery, if I'm following the logic of some of today's | discussion correctly. | throwawaygulf wrote: | >Buses are run by governments. | | Not the one Rosa Parks was on. | | >And Rosa Parks wasn't advocating throwing molotov | cocktails | | Rosa Parks no, but other Black groups most definitely. Same | with Parler, not everyone was advocating violence. | | >It'd be great if GMC would refuse selling vehicles to | insurrectionist militias, IMHO. | | Yup, stop selling them to the Black insurrectionist | militias (codeword for any Black political group), would | have been great. | | >Your analogies aren't doing any good here. | | They're pretty great honestly, describes the general idea | well. | thewindowmovie5 wrote: | Not only that, Rosa Parks was discriminated because of who | she was while the MAGA goons and the platform they used are | receiving backlash for behaving like pos and refusing to | moderate the violent posts. The parent poster is | deliberately muddying the water with the twisted analogy. | zanellato19 wrote: | This is the most important part. We need to defend people | from being discriminated for who they are, but things | they do is fair game. | anaerobicover wrote: | More specifically, for the things they do _towards the | destruction of our democratic society_. | spaced-out wrote: | > If Rosa Parks didn't like sitting in the back of the bus, | she could have just started her own bus line! | | Or she and like minded people could have boycotted the bus | lines, in modern terms "cancelling" them. (In case any non-US | users don't know, that's exactly what they did, it was called | the "Montgomery Bus Boycott"). | | Ironically, racists in those days tried to use the government | to shut that movement down, just like Republicans are trying | to use the government to go after people cancelling Parler | today. | umvi wrote: | Yeah, and if you can't find an ISP that will allow your | physical servers internet access you can always start your own | ISP... | jackson1442 wrote: | This line is exactly why ISPs should be treated as a utility | and not be allowed to deny service to anyone except in | special circumstances. Many people depend on the internet for | their livelihoods (like me!) and denying them access at their | home is almost akin to an electric company denying someone | access to the grid. | mattbee wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network-neutral_data_center | umvi wrote: | Just curious, if I buy a physical server, how would I then | go about installing it into a NNDC? | mattbee wrote: | Call them and ask! They may punt you to one of their | customers if you just want a U or 2. | | If you plan on your own AS and IP space - full network | independence - ask which carriers are there, and plan on | a quarter or half rack for a router. You'd also need to | become a member of your regional Internet registry (e.g. | ARIN in the US) and ask them for resources - e.g. IP | space and an AS number. | dang wrote: | Please make your substantive points without posting in the | flamewar style. We're trying to avoid the latter here because | it destroys what HN is supposed to be for: curious, thoughtful | conversation about interesting things. | | When accounts build up a track record of flamewar, snark, | political/ideological battle, and other things that break the | site guidelines, we ban them. We have to, because otherwise | this place will be engulfed by hellfire and then become | scorched earth. Those things may be exciting and/or activating | for a while, but they're not interesting. | | If you wouldn't mind reviewing | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the | intended spirit of this site to heart, we'd be grateful. You | can still express your views in that spirit, as many other HN | users have been showing. | guyzero wrote: | Shunning is a perfectly valid means of social expression. | ilogik wrote: | seriously, fuck greenwald. he's an idiot | | https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1190700971233619968 | sabhiram wrote: | While I understand the motive for the article, should service | provider companies really have to be egalitarian? What happened | to the likes of "No shoes, no shirt, no service"? | ogre_codes wrote: | If a site did nothing but post links to copyrighted/ pirated | songs, it would get banned. We know this because we've seen it | happen over and over. | | If a site posted links to houses where people were on vacation | and discussed best ways to break into them. It would get banned. | Nobody would complain. | | Why is it that a site which is essentially built to allow people | to discuss violent crimes against people is supposed to be | tolerated? We should tolerate it because it's discussing violent | crimes against politicians? I don't even think it's limited to | that regardless. | | Parler was created so people could discuss things which were | banned on other sites for being too violent and had too much hate | speech. It's unofficial charter is based on supporting criminal | activities. | | I don't understand why people are acting like this is free speech | when so many similar crime-based sites are not tolerated. | 99_00 wrote: | >Parler was created so people could discuss things which were | banned on other sites for being too violent and had too much | hate speech. It's unofficial charter is based on supporting | criminal activities. | | Can you provide a source for this? | [deleted] | [deleted] | dredmorbius wrote: | Greenwald's argument hinges on emotion, insinuation, invective, a | completely unfounded premise, an absolute absence of evidence, | and no consideration of alternative explanations: _an | overwhelmingly plausible ongoing law enforcement and national | security operation, likely under sealed or classified indictments | or warrants, in the face of ongoing deadly sedition lead by the | President of the United States himself, including against the | person of his own vice president and credible threats against the | President-Elect and Inauguration._ | | Such an legal action is, of course, extraordinarily difficult to | prove, and I cannot prove it. A key clue for me, however, is the | defection not just of Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Stripe, | and other tech firms, but of Parler's legal counsel, who would | have to be an exceptionally stealth-mode startup to fit | Greenwald's, or other's, "it's the tech monopolists" narrative. | I've tempered my degree of assurance and language ("plausible" | rather than "probable"). Time will tell. _But a keen and critical | mind such as Grenwald's should at least be weighing the | possibility._ He instead seems bent only on piking old sworn | enemies, with less evidence or coherence than I offer. | | This is the crux of Greenwald's argument. It's all he's got: | | _On Thursday, Parler was the most popular app in the United | States. By Monday, three of the four Silicon Valley monopolies | united to destroy it._ | | I'm no friend of the tech monopolists myself. The power | demonstrated here does concern me, greatly. I've long railed | against Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple, among | other tech monopolists. Largely because as monopolies they are | power loci acting through their occupation of a common resource, | outside common control, and not serving the common weal. Hell: | Facebook, Google (YouTube), Reddit, and Twitter played a massive | role in creating the current fascist insurrection in the US, | along with even more enthusiastic aid and comfort from | traditional media, across the spectrum. Damage that will take | decades to repair, if ever. | | But, if my hypothesis is correct, the alternative explanation | would bet he opposite of this: the state asserting power over and | through monopolies in the common interest, in support of | democratic principles, for the common weal. And that I can | support. | | I don't know that this is the case. I find it curious that I seem | to be the only voice suggesting it. Time should tell. | | And after this is over, yes, Silicon Valley, in its metonymic | sense standing for the US and global tech industry, has to face | its monopoly problem, its free speech problem (in both sincere | and insincere senses), its surveillance problem (capitalist, | state, criminal, rogue actor), its censorship problem, its | propaganda problem (mass and computational), its targeted | manipulation adtech problem, its trust problem, its identity | problem, its truth and disinformation problems, its tax avoidance | problem, its political influence problem. | | Virtually all of which are inherent aspects of monopoly: | "Propaganda, censorship, and surveillance are all attributes of | monopoly" | https://joindiaspora.com/posts/7bfcf170eefc013863fa002590d8e... | HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24771470 | | But, speaking as a space alien cat myself, Greenwald is so far | off base here he's exited the Galaxy. | yalogin wrote: | No one sheds a tear for Parlor, but lets also be clear about | this, the social media companies just showed a token of | conscience and it doesn't mean anything. They still didn't boot | people like Cruz, Hawley and Gaetz and the numerous others still | inciting the insurrection. I am sure they will not boot these | lawmakers as they will face retaliation if they do. I don't trust | the change of heart they are showing. | koolba wrote: | > No one sheds a tear for Parlor, but lets also be clear about | this, the social media companies just showed a token of | conscience and it doesn't mean anything. They still didn't boot | people like Cruz, Hawley and Gaetz and the numerous others | still inciting the insurrection. | | If following a constitutional process for protesting a State's | results in a presidential election is " _inciting the | insurrection_ ", somebody better start fitting Nancy Pelosi for | an orange jumpsuit: | https://www.c-span.org/video/?185005-2/debate-ohio-electoral... | Zigurd wrote: | Questions like "do we really want a handful of unelected | billionaires deciding what is acceptable speech" are getting | ahead of the game. | | First, why was it that these supposedly too-powerful tech giants | could be intimidated into allowing activity that was clearly | against ToS to go on for years before they grew a pair? | | "Free speech" in privately owned spaces is a difficult problem. i | would settle for even handed enforcement of ToS and a more | transparent ToS appeal process. | robodale wrote: | Good. I have no tolerance for the "Gravy Seals" planning attacks | using platforms like Parler. | SassyGrapefruit wrote: | "free speech" is like the power of pardon. In that until toxic | individuals insisted on testing its most extreme boundaries it | was allowed to remain, in theory, nearly unlimited. | | "Free Speech" is a great thing when it's used with wisdom and | solid judgment. It can be a vehicle for insight, innovation, and | new ways to think about the world. This reflects the constructive | uses of "free speech" | | If you look at the other side of the coin you have these | eruptions of toxic individualism. The power of "free speech" | isn't used for constructive reasons. Instead it's a show of | force. I am going to say this and there is nothing you can do to | stop me. This has continued even as we see real material setbacks | manifest because of this capricious use of "free speech" | | Returning for a moment to the power of the pardon. It's likely we | will see that power reigned in. It was never scrutinized before | because the wielders of that power always used it responsibly and | judiciously. I think we're going to have to turn the same | scrutiny to speech on the internet. In the end you can point the | fingers at the selfish few that ruined a good thing for the rest | of us. | ndiscussion wrote: | > toxic individuals | | Are you perhaps referring to Bill Clinton, who pardoned Susan | Rosenberg, a convicted terrorist that set off a bomb in US | federal buildings and committed armed robberies? | dragonwriter wrote: | > Are you perhaps referring to Bill Clinton, who pardoned | Susan Rosenberg, a convicted terrorist that set off a bomb in | US federal buildings and committed armed robberies? | | Bill Clinton did not pardon her, he commuted her sentence to | the 16+ years she had already served. Commutation and pardon | are significantly different. | ndiscussion wrote: | In practice how are they different? Would you find it | appropriate to "commute" the sentence of any other | terrorists? | dragonwriter wrote: | > In practice how are they different? | | Are you in a jurisdiction that disenfranchises felons? If | you are pardoned, you can vote. If your sentencd was | commuted, you can't. | | Is there a job that bars felons (either in general, or | who have committed the kind of offense you are convicted | of)? If you are pardoned, you can be hired for it. If | your sentencd was commuted, you cannot. | | Is there a job that, while it doesn't strictly ban ex- | offenders, requires a criminal background check. If you | were pardoned, the conviction was wiped away. If your | sentence was commuted, it is still there. | | Etc. Pardon undoes the conviction. Commutation stops | incarceration and leaves the conviction and all its | ancillary effects in place. | | > Would you find it appropriate to "commute" the sentence | of any other terrorists? | | If, as one hypothetical pattern, their sentence was | unusually long form the crimes they were convicted of | with no apparent explanation beyond the political | circumstances at the time of conviction, if they'd served | more time than the typical sentence for the offense, and | their conduct in prison showed a high probability of | successful reintegration into society, sure. | SassyGrapefruit wrote: | They are materially different. A pardon reflects | forgiveness and seeks to redress civil disability | typically as a result of a systemic injustice. | | A commutation is a lessening of the penalty. It implies | that the act was wrong and the sentence was deserved but | perhaps it was heavy handed. There is no implication of | innocence in a commutation. | avelis wrote: | If this is a call to regulate the internet then it is now a | utility and must be treated as such. That would essentially have | to ask big tech to be broken up. The model we have now does not | treat the internet and its platforms as a utility. I am not sure | if we can even do a middle ground. It is either one or the other. | [deleted] | totalZero wrote: | The speculated anticompetitive behavior wouldn't be described as | monopolistic, it'd be horizontal conduct. Tsk tsk, Greenwald. | deeeeplearning wrote: | Lots of "Libertarians" with bad hyprocrisy in constantly bringing | up "free speech." Yet the same people cheer for Christian | Bakeries that refuse to serve gay couples. | | And those people trying to claim these tech companies are | "utilities" are insane. There is a 0% chance that any tech | company is going to be declared a utility in the next several | decades in the US and to think otherwise is totally absurd. So | those arguments just hold no water. | MrMan wrote: | this shouldnt be flagged - I think it is a bad blog post by | Greenwald, but it is good fodder for discussion | ChrisLomont wrote: | Also: how Silicon Valley makes companies like Parler possible. | peter_d_sherman wrote: | First off, I like Glenn Greenwald very much as a journalist. | | Remember that he and Laura Poitras helped Edward Snowden disclose | to the world what he did, in 2013. | | In other words, as a journalist, he does, or should command a | huge amount of respect from the HN community. | | He has my respect. | | Now, with that as a background, let's talk about this article. | | It's an important article, and yes, broadly speaking, the claims | that are made are true. | | But the problem I have with this article (and not with Glenn | Greenwald personally, who again, is a great journalist!) is that | it's a little bit too broad... | | To give you an understanding of this, let's say that in the | future, I ran an online service with an App Store, like Apple or | Google. | | OK, so now, for whatever reason, the Parler App is removed from | the App Store that I run. | | But, to tell me (and the newsreader) that it was an act of Tech | Tyranny, of Monopolistic Force -- is not good enough. | | You see, I believe in several things: | | 1) Strong Logging | | 2) Chain Of Command | | 3) Chain Of Custody | | But most importantly, the "5 Whys": | | 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys | | In other words, I'd like (as a member of the public) an _" | organizational backtrace"_, starting with the engineer who | physically removed the App from the app store, moving from there | to his manager that ordered it, and moving from there up levels | of management. | | In other words, _WHO_ ordered _WHAT_ , _WHEN_ , and _WHY_. | | In other words, don't start with the highest level effect, the | silencing of free speech, start with the lowest level effect -- | the physical removal of the App from the App Store by the | engineer that did it. | | From that point, use the _5 WHYS_ to work backward, something | like, "OK, this engineer did this because he was ordered to by | his manager", so WHY did the manager do it?, "Because he was | ordered to by his manager", etc. | | But now the question arises -- _Who was at the highest level of | management at that company that gave that order?_ | | And now we ask WHY again... so we need to talk to him, and find | out exactly _WHY_ (what socio-political-moral-ethic-legal-or- | whatever pressure was applied to him, and how?) | | See, answer all of those questions, and _THEN_ you have the true | story! | | But all this being said, I do love Glenn Greenwald! | kwindla wrote: | Ben Thompson provides a more nuanced analysis, including useful | background for engaging with a lot of the questions posed in the | threads here: https://stratechery.com/2021/internet-3-0-and-the- | beginning-... | LatteLazy wrote: | America (and my own country the UK) really need to have a serious | reckoning with a whole mess of things: Fake news, Populism, weak | leadership, short termism, lack of compromise and partisanship, | the rise of extremism, censorship and cancel-culture, | demographics vs democracy issues, racism, over-zealous anti- | racism, and win-at-all-cost politicians to name but a few. | | But it isn't ready or willing to even start. | | Until then, it's hard to really care about any of this. I don't | like censorship or big companies deciding what's acceptable. But | someone has to, and no one else is willing to oppose some of the | worst people and events we've had in generations. | wavesounds wrote: | It's called a boycott. It's not a "monopolistic force" when | they're many different companies ranging from lawyers and | accountants to cloud providers and app stores. | | Boycott: "withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a | country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest." | riccccccc wrote: | The whole free speech debate boils down to this, Do you think we | have enough freedoms, do you think that every civil liberty is | now afforded to everyone. The Civil Rights Movement in the 60s | was considered hateful and violent at one point, without free | speech they would have been driven into the sea. Gay and Trans | rights were once considered not valid speech as well. Without | Unregulated and uncontrolled speech. All of these things could | have been labeled as hateful speech, hateful to white people or | hateful to the traditional family unit. Any talk about limiting | speech by the government or social media only dictates that we | have enough freedoms and liberties and anything new that comes up | is fair game to be labeled as "hate speech" | remote_phone wrote: | I do think that what they did is setting themselves up for | regulation. To shut off a service used by millions overnight is | dangerous. | busterarm wrote: | Regulation by whom? | | They just sent the biggest signal they possibly could that | they're willing to play ball to keep one party in full control | of our government forever. | | Big Tech is part of your government now. As if years of senior | cabinet positions for Big Tech employees wasn't already enough | of a clue. | eplanit wrote: | These actions and events are making the case solid that the | Internet is a utility, and needs to be regulated as such. It's | sad, but inevitable. | pfdietz wrote: | How Silicon Valley, fearing prosecution under 18 U.S. Code SS | 2383, dropped Parler like radioactive waste. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-12 23:01 UTC)