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

31–40 of 889 posts

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

#31

Post by klyrs »

seibelj wrote: post #16
echelon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Updated my post with a link. I'll find more.

Wow that’s dumb if true, why even bother!?

Indeed, indeed. If it's not about the principled and unflinching protection of free speech, then what is it about?

I've said it about twitter and I'll say it about parler. Freedom of association is also a first amendment right. Speech is being exercised by the owners of a platform when they edit/curate/annotate posts, and association is being exercised when they ban/shadowban users.

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

#32

Post by joshuamorton »

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.

Just a note: "Shouting Fire in a crowded theater" is protected, since Brandenberg in 1969. The standard is that you can't incite imminent lawless action, and people trying to escape from a fire isn't "lawless".

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

#33

Post by least »

When "free speech" is the primary selling point of a social media website, it tends to only attract people who feel slighted by the platform they're migrating from. Unfortunately this has the opposite effect of Parler's stated goal of being "the world's town square" since it simply isn't attractive to people with opposing views of those who did move.

I think free speech is important and I think that social media platforms can be a bit overzealous in their moderation of the content of its users. I just don't think you can sell a platform on it alone. It should be a feature of your platform, not the only thing going for it.

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

#34

Post by zebrafish »

giantDinosaur wrote: post #24
tcbawo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Is it knowingly falsely yell fire? Or just falsely yell fire?

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

#35

Post by scottlocklin »

cptskippy wrote: post #27
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.

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.

C/A as sinister manipulators has to be the most preposterous conspiracy theory to come out of the last 4 years -and that includes Qanon. They were a marketing company also known for the scoundrely manipulations of the.... LL Bean catalog. Maybe they sold some people flannel shirts. Terrible.

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/11/02/huckster-hack-uk-govt-rep...

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

#36

Post by joshuamorton »

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…

This is certainly a line of thinking. Of course the alternative is:

1. Tech platforms were too slow with limiting extremist viewpoints

2. Instead of keeping extremist views isolated, this allowed them to pick up more support. These groups continue to move more and more extreme, and more popular.

3. Delays in taking action to prevent the spread of these views allowed the combination of extremism and popular support that empowered people to make outrageous claims.

Of course, the presidential bully pulpit being used to stoke these ideas didn't help. We could argue about which of these mis more likely all day.

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

#37

Post by ivnubinas »

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.

Then who will have the power to decide what free speech needs to be suppressed? Let's give it a thought at the options available:

A) Government. Some years liberals will supress conservatives, when the power is switch conservatives will supress back. The whole concept of free speech was specifically designed to not have the government dictate what you can say or not say.

B) The press. Which one, CNN or Fox News? The trust on the media is an all-time low and they clearly have earned that reputation.

C) The judicial system? Again, most of them are appointed by the government.

D) Tech lords. I really hope no one is advocating for this.

I am not American, I wish to live in a country where I can criticize anyone, even the President, without fear of getting arrested for a bogus claim of defimation. Is sad to see that most Americans don't value their own freedoms.

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

#38

Post by dannyw »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #25
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.

On reddit, these reasons you mention are selectively enforced and often actually made by people trying to get the subreddits banned. Bans are also familial: reddit tends to do “ban waves” where they also ban similar subreddits, irrespective of whether they have rule violations or not. There’s no communication; no appeals; no “you got this wrong”.

If you’ve ever participated in one of the banned subreddits; you’ll know “hate speech” or “doxxing” are a big fat lie. WE are the ones getting doxxed and brigaded!

It’s not too different to police using marijuana laws to target Black communities. In a free-to-join community of thousands to millions of people, you will get people breaking the rules. Moderators clean them up. The only difference is unwelcome viewpoints get their subreddit banned with this as the pretext.

Source: moderator of 3 banned subreddits; from political to sexual kinks like consensual rape fetishes (which 31% of women say they have fantasises; just FYI).

Admins have never; ever, ever engaged with us during my tenures.

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

#39

Post by tcbawo »

giantDinosaur wrote: post #24
tcbawo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was comparing the amplification of social media with the concept of yelling in a theater.

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

#40

Post by joshuamorton »

rayiner wrote: post #30
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 provi…

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

I don't believe Clinton ever attacked the integrity of the election process itself. She did claim (and as far as I'm aware the investigations more or less supported the claims) that the Trump campaign colluded with foreign governments to influence the election.

Post reply on HN