Wake up Dang, this is another one of those "political flame-bait threads"!
Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
201–210 of 889 posts
Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#202Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#203I thought the alternative to twitter would be maston[0]. It's 'uncensored' federated twitter clone that anyone can create a node and create a social community of their choosing. Not sure how "Parler" is going to be better than twitter with a central point of failure. More political fodder I guess. [0]: https://mastodon.social/about
Mastadon is not "uncensored" either. They put significant effort into blocking gab when it tried integrating into the fediverse.
The only real solution to censorship will be a completely distributed system, where users control their own data and associations, and all communication is peer-to-peer, end-to-end encrypted, with zero middle-men.
Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
That's the point of "free speech" - I don't care how far right / left / in outer space your ideas are. You can say them, and I won't absorb the message if I don't care. It's the old saying about TV - if you don't like what's on, just change the channel.
No free speech is about only saying things I agree with!
Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is actually true (god I hate agreeing with Trump/the GOP). Collusion was not proven, and the left-wing media went completely overboard on this. Did Russia want Hillary Clinton to lose? Yes. Did the Trump campaign meet with Russian operatives? Yes. Did they collude with Russians? No, not in a legal sense. Was the determining factor in the election Russian interference? No, it was almost certainly the NYT covering…
> Was the determining factor in the election Russian interference? No, it was almost certainly the NYT covering the James Comey investigation into Hillary's emails in the last week. Keep in mind the entire Hillary's emails thing may have stemmed from Russian foreign intelligence work.
Again, lots of speculation around this, no reasonable evidence in favour.
Like, I'm not American (and I would have voted for Sanders twice if I was), but the core issue here is that people are focusing on conspiracy-like theories to explain their loss in elections, rather than trying to understand where the other side is coming from.
Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#206How 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.
The most famous use of the ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater analogy was 1919’s Schenck v. United States, where the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that protesting the draft by passing out pamphlets exemplified a clear and present danger worthy of regulation.
A handful of exceptions do exist to the First Amendment, but free speech absolutists tend to be skeptical of the comparison you make in your post, because historically there have been some serious legal wrongs performed in the name of said crowded theater.
Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are they “verifiable” falsehoods? E.g., conspiracy theories are famous for being almost always unfalsifiable. These views usually are a mix of low prior hypotheses, politically incorrect semi-truths, marketing propaganda (with few empirical assertions), and lies.
"The NSA is secretly monitoring all communications on the internet" That would have easily been labeled misinformation and disinformation 10 years ago.
And... That's fine I think. Nobody actually knew that, even though many suspected it. Less strict versions of that sentence would be completely fine. Discussing the details of things like their secret rooms at internet exchanges and countermeasures in case it was true would be great too.
But it's like people saying "MS is selling all your behaviour data" today, which is likely partially true, but not quite in that way. And when they take that extreme position without having something to back it up, it's hard to / not worth discussing.
Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
So just like most consumer tech startups then?
No tech startups at least aim to make money either from the operations or from increasing the value of the business.
Having seen the decisions made by many of these startups, I'm extremely sceptical that this is the case.
Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agreed with you until the last paragraph, where it became clear that your problem isn’t with extreme views in general, just the sort of extreme views Trump is likely to endorse. That’s exactly the bias that people behind Parler aim to exploit (or provide an escape from, depending on your view)
I was discussing the exact same set of views as the parent: those espoused on "Parler, TheDonald, etc" (and also subtly objecting to the parent's proposed timeline. The_donald started self-radicalizing long before it was quarantined. In fact, it was the radicalization that took place in the Donald that led to its subsequent quarantine and removal). I certainly do take issue with extreme views on the other side, but t…
I imagine this view will not be looked on with approval, but the ethos espoused by the BLM cadre is explicitly anti-capitalist and anti-police. To many who are right of center, that looks like an extreme left-wing view that is not only tolerated by tech and social media companies, but actively promoted. It’s not all crystals and homeopathy.
Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1. Tech platforms are uncomfortable with certain viewpoints expressed on their platforms and seek to limit these viewpoints. For the most part, those "viewpoints" are verifiable falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and other types of disinformation and misinformation. For instance, the recent migrations to Parler are chiefly people who want to deny the legitimate US presidential election result and spread false claims…
So what? People should be free to discuss stupid and wrong ideas. Btw: I think conspiracy theories are good indicators for what certain people want to believe. I personally don't want to be disconnected from these indicators.
Recall that for at least 3 years, Reddit, here, and many other places were pushing the Russia collusion conspiracy theory.
Nobody can fact check for you. You need to make your own opinions based on the knowledge you have, and suppressing information does not make you more informed.