Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

text.npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 889 posts

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#21

Post by p1necone »

rayiner wrote: post #15
echelon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of people on Reddit and TikTok are getting banned on Parler for posting liberal ideas [1]. It's not free speech . It's one-sided. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/parler-ted-cruz-approved-free-speec... Edit: this post is getting downvoted like crazy. People have strong opinions about this.

> "Pretty much all of my leftist friends joined Parler to screw with MAGA folks, and every last one of them was banned in less than 24 hours because conservatives truly love free speech," one user recently wrote on Twitter. It sounds like they were banned for being antagonistic assholes, not for being liberals.

It doesn't matter what they were banned for, it's still hypocritical for a platform apparently based around "free speech" to ban people for speech they don't agree with.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#22

Post by lostcolony »

rayiner wrote: post #15
echelon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of people on Reddit and TikTok are getting banned on Parler for posting liberal ideas [1]. It's not free speech . It's one-sided. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/parler-ted-cruz-approved-free-speec... Edit: this post is getting downvoted like crazy. People have strong opinions about this.

> "Pretty much all of my leftist friends joined Parler to screw with MAGA folks, and every last one of them was banned in less than 24 hours because conservatives truly love free speech," one user recently wrote on Twitter. It sounds like they were banned for being antagonistic assholes, not for being liberals.

I mean...that's kind of the reason a lot of these people got banned from Twitter/etc, too, being antagonistic assholes, not for being conservative. So kind of ironic if they and the platform are saying Parler is better because "free speech".

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#23

Post by p1necone »

echelon wrote: post #8
seibelj wrote: post #2

I’m not a conservative but I support free speech. I installed it but the recommended people were Fox News pundits and politicians I didn’t care about. I like the idea of enabling users to hide speech they don’t like rather than a Speech Czar that determines what we are allowed to hear. But it will take some time for something like this to get a critical mass of users to make it work.

Plenty of people on Reddit and TikTok are getting banned on Parler for posting liberal ideas [1]. It's not free speech . It's one-sided. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/parler-ted-cruz-approved-free-speec... Edit: this post is getting downvoted like crazy. People have strong opinions about this.

"free speech" is just being used as a dog whistle for far right ideas in this case. These people are not behaving in good faith, don't bother engaging with them as if they were.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#24

Post by giantDinosaur »

tcbawo wrote: post #14
echelon wrote: post #4

How long until America starts putting limits on free speech? IANAL, but we already have laws against libel, slander, and defamation. Section 230 / communications decency could be modified. New laws could be created to prevent amplified spread of factually incorrect information. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to broadcast that speech. I'm not advocating for this, but I see it as a possibility.

There are limits to free speech which have been long established. The clear and present danger doctrine describes limits to free speech, in that you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. When/if the amplification possible with social media is connected with mob violence, there could be prosecution. I don't think court systems and law enforcement are sophisticated enough yet, though.

You mean falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre - an exceedingly important distinction which is core to much discussion about free speech (should offensive speech be allowed if it is stating facts etc.)

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#25

Post by cycrutchfield »

dannyw wrote: post #19

1. Tech platforms are uncomfortable with certain viewpoints expressed on their platforms and seek to limit these viewpoints. 2. Instead of changing people’s minds (isn’t the evidence overwhelmingly conclusive that people rarely change political viewpoints?), people flock to “community bubbles” like Parler, TheDonald, etc where they feel welcome. 3. This marginalisation leads to increasing extremism; going from the li…

Platforms are not limiting “viewpoints” unless by viewpoints you mean something like hate speech, threats of violence, doxxing, etc.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#26

Post by sfkdjf9j3j »

roenxi wrote: post #11

One of the advantages Free Speech has is censorship is only worthwhile if deployed against ideas that have potential to attract people. One of my pet hobbies is arguing against socialism. I don't bother arguing against flat-earthism because nobody sane believes it. But socialism has some compelling points and people keep trying it. That dynamic will help platforms like Parler. Whether or not the ideas are good ones,…

Here's one data point that is at least related: http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#27

Post by cptskippy »

echelon wrote: post #8
seibelj wrote: post #2

I’m not a conservative but I support free speech. I installed it but the recommended people were Fox News pundits and politicians I didn’t care about. I like the idea of enabling users to hide speech they don’t like rather than a Speech Czar that determines what we are allowed to hear. But it will take some time for something like this to get a critical mass of users to make it work.

Plenty of people on Reddit and TikTok are getting banned on Parler for posting liberal ideas [1]. It's not free speech . It's one-sided. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/parler-ted-cruz-approved-free-speec... Edit: this post is getting downvoted like crazy. People have strong opinions about this.

The fact that it's funded by the Mercers should give everyone pause for concern. They're rolling their own platform to do what Cambridge Analytica did without having to answer to anyone.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#29

Post by inZGBl »

echelon wrote: post #13
gizmodo59 wrote: post #10

This whole thread is going to be: * I'm not a liberal but.. * I'm not a conservative but.. * Twitter may be a private company, but.. * Freedom of speech but... If there is a new view point on how to analytically break such news down that would be great to hear indeed!

Money and power has found a way to hack the first amendment. Algorithms are amplifying the most inflammatory messages on both sides to increase engagement.

Is this the endgame of the attention economy? If I show you a picture of a cat and evidence of an existential threat, which are you most likely to pay real attention to?

The black box is always going to optimize for the worst aspects of humanity. The best aspects simply aren’t worth enough money.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#30

Post by rayiner »

dannyw wrote: post #19

1. Tech platforms are uncomfortable with certain viewpoints expressed on their platforms and seek to limit these viewpoints. 2. Instead of changing people’s minds (isn’t the evidence overwhelmingly conclusive that people rarely change political viewpoints?), people flock to “community bubbles” like Parler, TheDonald, etc where they feel welcome. 3. This marginalisation leads to increasing extremism; going from the li…

Donald Trump attacked illegal immigration specifically: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/08/tim-kaine/...

Also, he attacked accepting refugees from certain high-risk countries (which had been designated as such by the Obama administration).

He didn’t say “immigrants bad.”

> Kaine has embellished the controversy by saying Trump has said "all Mexicans are rapists." The Democrat doesn’t come close to proving his claim; all of the Trump quotes Kaine’s campaign sent us pertain to unauthorized immigrants crossing the Mexican border into the U.S.

Also, it’s not like Clinton didn’t spend four years “disputing ... democracy.” See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...

> Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday.

Journalists can’t help allowing their point of view to influence their reporting. But when someone can just pull up as transcript and say “well he didn’t really say that” that damages the credibility of the media. Even if what he actually said was wrong or bad on its own merits. This is what drives people to alternative media silos, and that’s bad because people are no longer operating from the same facts.

Post reply on HN