Live data from Hacker News

Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

text.npr.org

401–410 of 889 posts

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

#401

It’s worth noting that the first thing Parler did was start censoring anyone unsupportive of their form of conservatism. They’re not offering freer speech, they’re offering a safe space. Maybe that’s a seller, maybe it’s not, but it’s an important distinction. This is really just /r/conservative taken to its logical conclusion.

Do you have a source for this? Genuinely curious and couldn't find anything searching myself.

https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-...

To be clear, it makes sense to ban fake accounts proporting to be well known people and people breaking the law.

Banning anyone with views you dislike and anyone paroding conservatives is where it gets censourous.

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

#402

It’s worth noting that the first thing Parler did was start censoring anyone unsupportive of their form of conservatism. They’re not offering freer speech, they’re offering a safe space. Maybe that’s a seller, maybe it’s not, but it’s an important distinction. This is really just /r/conservative taken to its logical conclusion.

Source: https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-...

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

#403
post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, Glenn Greenwald resigned from the Intercept so he could write about it. That post wasn't censored in any way, shape or form. There were huge threads here about this for literally a week. Seems like a bad job was done on supressing that information.

Huh? I'm talking about the claims it's all "Russian disinformation" were not censored on Twitter . That's despite intelligence agencies saying that "there is no evidence it's Russian disinformation".

You mean the story with an implausible chain of evidence that somehow winds up at Rudy Giuliani. This Rudy Giuliani: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-bi...

The one intelligence agencies are in fact definitely claiming is being targeted by Russian disinformation?

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

#404

There's a lot of mistaken assumptions and misinformation here about Parler; it looks like most of the commenters haven't actually used it, or have only given it a cursory glance. To wit: 1. Parler is actively recruiting liberals and moderates, to build a "big tent" of diverse opinions and perspectives. 2. The moderation guidelines are quite explicit: don't censor anyone for expressing a political opinion of any sort.…

Really? I see people being banned for mocking conservatives, doesn’t sound free:

https://mobile.twitter.com/mmasnick/status/12777231528946810...

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

#405
post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a democracy, it's a federal republic.

It's a constitutional republic / representative democracy. Republics and democracies aren't mutually exclusive. It's certainly not a direct democracy, but that doesn't make it not a democracy.

In a pure democracy there is no such thing as a constitution, as in the underlying principles can be changed by the majority in power. Having a constitution leads to more stability.

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

#406
For the last year or so, I've been trying something new with my social media usage, to mixed results.

My theory is that while I'm interested in the personal lives of the people I follow, for the most part I couldn't care less about things they post with the direct intent of emotionally-manipulating me. So much of those kinds of posts are driven by loneliness, boredom, existential angst, and the comfort that public clanning brings people. While I'm completely committed to supporting and caring for my friends, these posts never bring them the relief they seek. Instead, it always ends up in a more-and more frenetic argument. I am almost beginning to think that for many of them, if they can't find that comfort online, they'll settle for a good fight. And after more than two decades online, I have never seen that comfort successfully delivered, aside from in a performative way.

So every time one of my friends re-posts or shares something I find emotionally manipulative, whether I agree or disagree with the sentiments, I take a look at the original source. Is this a source with, say, more than 10K followers? If so, my friend's participation in this communication stream is much more like a little propagandist than somebody who is either seeking or offering comfort. So I block the original source; after all, it'll just keep appearing again and again in my freed until one day it causes an argument.

This, for the most part, leaves honest-to-goodness things my friends are actually experiencing in person, instead of vicariously. As long as that's the case, I try to allow wide latitude, after all, I want to learn and share from as many people as possible with differing views. If, however, I notice a pattern of pain, either pain they're experiencing that I can't help with or pain they're seeking to inflict in others in order to fight with them, I start the snoozing and nofollowing.

I wish I could say that this strategy has been highly successful. It has certainly made social media much less painful, but over time I'm finding that I'm pretty much zapping everybody. Very few people have the editorial discipline to actually be responsible worldwide publishers. Most of us will far too easily choose attention over quality conversations. Social media isn't helping us; it's hacking us.

I wish my friends on the right the best of luck. I think it's a good move. Anything to advance the destruction of this cognitive and epistemology monopoly is a win in my book. I look forward to seeing how it goes for them.

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

#407

I’m starting to think that this could actually be good news for left-leaning people. It’s entirely possible that separated from the people they usually fight against, and isolated in their own platform, conservative voices, people who have made careers out of rhetorical conflict, will begin to fight among themselves. and this can only benefit the left. It’s also very possible that Parler will only go uncensored for s…

I am not sure that letting people exist in their own self-validating echo chamber is a good thing.

You make it sound that it was not always a thing.

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

#408
post #357

It’s worth noting that the first thing Parler did was start censoring anyone unsupportive of their form of conservatism. They’re not offering freer speech, they’re offering a safe space. Maybe that’s a seller, maybe it’s not, but it’s an important distinction. This is really just /r/conservative taken to its logical conclusion.

Do you have an example of what was censored? Was it "I disagree with Trump's approach to foreign policy..." or was it thousands of spam messages?

They banned anyone parodying Conservatives and also anyone voicing support for antifa.

https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-...

They also banned fake accounts pretending to be well known people and accounts engaged in illegal activity (death threats etc). I'm fine with that personally, I don't expect them to operate a totally "free" speech service and somehow weather all the lawsuits that brings.

I think this is a nice case study in how free speech inevitably conflicts with keeping majority opinions happy. The fact that they folded on freedom to get/keep people with such thin skin so sort of tells you what their business model really is imho.

Cest la vie.

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

#409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many other places were pushing the Russia collusion conspiracy theory. I might be out of touch but isn't it fairly established at this point that - for certain definitions of "collusion" - it was factually true? i.e. not "Trump got together with Putin and hatched a plan" true but "both sides obliquely acknowledged the interests of the other with a nod and a wink" true?

I'm not one for comprehension, but are you stating that if China prefers to have Biden at the helm, and if he wins that they colluded to get him there? Quite the gymnastics friend.

No - I'm saying in addition to "Russia prefers Trump at the helm", there was some (direct or indirect) contact between the two parties and some awareness and (implicit or explicit) encouragement from the Trump camp for Russian actions.

Surely there is a meaningful distance between that and your formulation?

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

#410

It’s worth noting that the first thing Parler did was start censoring anyone unsupportive of their form of conservatism. They’re not offering freer speech, they’re offering a safe space. Maybe that’s a seller, maybe it’s not, but it’s an important distinction. This is really just /r/conservative taken to its logical conclusion.

I was banned from r/conservative in a discussion about trump handling the coronavirus seriously. I posted a timeline of quotes from him "only 15 cases soon to be none etc" indicating he had not taken it seriously early. Banned after that. Which is fine, I feel that people should be free to form any clubs/groups they want.

I agree broadly though I'd add two caveats:

They can't do that AND profess to support free speech within their club.

I think people should be able to form their groups as they like. But that doesn't mean that that group is a healthy place or that it doesn't harm wider society.

I'm also not clear whether this is a group of people forming under their own initiative (as is their democratic right). Or if its actually some shady privately funded project by billionaires seeking to influence elections. That second option is much less democractic and would (imho at least) be open to investigation and regulation like any other campaign activity. Hopefully it's not that, it's just someone trying to launch twitter 2.0 and make some cash.

What a mess! :)

Post reply on HN