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

551–560 of 889 posts

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

#551

Post by matwood »

0x445442 wrote: post #526
matwood wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we agree that there is a difference between an on screen nipple or saying fuck on TV and the POTUS actively undermining democracy? The general talk of free speech and censoring is not really useful here without specifics. Just like someone can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, there are other things we are finding that may be similar in nature. I think a more useful discussion could be around the specifics. Sho…

So you think Trump is the first POTUS to make objectively false statements and have those amplified over mass media?

First? No. Most prolific? I think so. He's also one of the first to make heavy use of direct social media, which is different than mass media of old.

Notice also I didn't say Trump, but POTUS in general. What do we want to do here going forward? Should the POTUS be treated differently than a private citizen?

What this current period reminds me of historically is McCarthyism, except we have the POTUS lobbing baseless claims instead of a senator. I don't think McCarthyism impacted the general public as much as claims undermining the election does though.

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

#552

Post by gwilikers »

ajvs wrote: post #456
AsyncAwait wrote: post #307

Conservatives seem to be fine with censoring BDS voices, with legislation on the books against it in several states.

What's the acronym?

Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanc...

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

#553

Post by arkanciscan »

jackfoxy wrote: post #541

All of this could have been avoided with more robust filtering capabilities in the hands of users, which Twitter has consistently refused to provide. The big social media platforms should be treated as common carriers, and as such only be responsible for preventing malware and flat-out illegal content. Expecting Big Tech to moderate content (for what?) while allowing them to force feed unwanted/unrequested content to…

There was a time that I thought that Twitter should do what Parler is doing; let the original author approve replies before making them visible. Now that I've seen Parler demonstrate it, I think that Twitter would never have become as popular as it is if they had done so from the begining. The feature that allows for the wide conversation that Twitter is famous for is also responsible for it's abusability.

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

#554

Post by orblivion »

LatteLazy wrote: post #401
smbullet wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One possible take is that there's a fundamental difference between banning opinions and banning presentation. You could ban spam, impersonations, doxxing, all harassment and insults, posting fecal matter, porn, racial and other epithets, and so forth, but still be able to discuss the related crazy ideas (holocaust denial, child porn legalization, etc). I think this preserves the most important part of free speech.

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

#555

Post by concordDance »

notahacker wrote: post #158
refurb wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to agree that big tech really messed this one up. Their attempt at regulating speech on their platforms (entirely their own right to do however they want) has resulted in both sides being pissed . I had commented on this a while ago that it was like War Games - the only way to win this game was not to play at all. The second they started being the arbitrator of speech they were guaranteed to piss people off. T…

I dont think Big Tech got every call right, but I really don't see how they please both sides here. Especially when one side, from the top down, considers everything other than sycophantic praise for its leader to be 'fake news', and the other side has some people opining that even reporting things the other side says without qualification is irresponsible journalism. If anything, I'd say hindsight makes some of thei…

> the other side

The other side has outright banned questioning important tribal narratives. (That I happen to agree with those tribal narratives is besides the point)

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

#556

Post by ceejayoz »

axaxs wrote: post #487
Rick1 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well some have tried. There was a civil war about it.

Exactly. Many of the people who make civil war/anti south jokes are the same people who want California to secede, which makes no sense. In its simplest form, the civil war wasn't fought because the north thought slavery was bad. It was fought because several states tried to leave the United States.

Why did they try to leave, again?

Hint: Most of the secession declarations include language like this:

> But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.

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

#557

Post by macintux »

0x445442 wrote: post #526
matwood wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we agree that there is a difference between an on screen nipple or saying fuck on TV and the POTUS actively undermining democracy? The general talk of free speech and censoring is not really useful here without specifics. Just like someone can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, there are other things we are finding that may be similar in nature. I think a more useful discussion could be around the specifics. Sho…

So you think Trump is the first POTUS to make objectively false statements and have those amplified over mass media?

I think he’s the first to do so on the scale of thousands of such statements.

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

#558

Post by whimsicalism »

TravHatesMe wrote: post #451
calinet6 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it as the opposite: this may be how a technical network is supposed to work, but it's not how a society is supposed to work. The internet has created the ability for any given subculture to discover instant validation and reinforce their beliefs into a tribe, which further solidifies and extremifies those beliefs. It's a psychological power almost equivalent to a nuclear reaction: beliefs and ideas that might h…

Well said! Makes me think about the scope of tribalism before the internet. Without a doubt there was some, perhaps to a lesser degree though? I think certain views/opinions were more privately kept, perhaps shared with family members and close friends but very rarely shared with people outside their inner circle -- everything you said had your name attached to it and thus carried risks. I suppose you could write new…

> I think that it's possible to minimize tribalism by enabling civil discussion that shares many perspectives, with all hostility removed (and perhaps minimal emotions), and most importantly, let the audience form their own opinions.

It is unsurprising that HN commentators think that the best discussion forum would be one without any emotion or hostility.

I think it is important, however, to guard against the hubris of porting your own model (whether it is American-style democracy or HN-style discussion forums) to every corner of the globe.

It might be apparent to us why this model is better, but it might be equally apparent to other, more combative internet commentators, why their model is better. When very smart people on both sides think that a different approach is best, it might be worth treading carefully.

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

#559

Post by jackfoxy »

ponker wrote: post #544
jackfoxy wrote: post #541

All of this could have been avoided with more robust filtering capabilities in the hands of users, which Twitter has consistently refused to provide. The big social media platforms should be treated as common carriers, and as such only be responsible for preventing malware and flat-out illegal content. Expecting Big Tech to moderate content (for what?) while allowing them to force feed unwanted/unrequested content to…

“All this could have been avoided” implies that Big Social Media wanted to avoid this. I don’t think they did. A ton of content that they’ve been wrestling with is just fleeing by itself. I imagine they’re thrilled.

That is completely true. Although I don't think at the beginning Big Social Media realized how it would play out. They seem to be now committed to the we are moderating as fast as we can approach/excuse.

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

#560

Post by whimsicalism »

leppr wrote: post #480
calinet6 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it as the opposite: this may be how a technical network is supposed to work, but it's not how a society is supposed to work. The internet has created the ability for any given subculture to discover instant validation and reinforce their beliefs into a tribe, which further solidifies and extremifies those beliefs. It's a psychological power almost equivalent to a nuclear reaction: beliefs and ideas that might h…

Censorship is the last-resort solution. Ideally, you'd want to have control over people's education and social structures to prevent deviation before any censorship is even needed. It's a real shame, because it seems we had reached a peak with the advent of mandatory state school and television. Now things are going downhill with more and more diverse subcultures allowed to build upon themselves and explore the limit…

Recognizing the satire, I agree with the implicit critique that you're making.

That said, I think we also have to recognize that there is no true vacuum of discourse - ie.

> There has to be a way to keep people in line with our society's values while still giving them an impression of freedom.

Even if this is not what we're moving to with public schooling, it is essentially what we're moving to in the private sphere post-Citizen's United, etc. only the values are dictated by those with wealth, rather than procedural, governmental power.

Post reply on HN