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

601–610 of 889 posts

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

#601

Post by tzs »

nostromo wrote: post #90
joshuamorton wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you claiming that Clinton's suggestion that we wait until absentee ballots are included before letting someone claim victory is "disputing ... democracy", or are you trying to change the subject to something else?

Nobody is “disputing democracy” at this point. Bush vs Gore took an entire month to sort out. Hillary said this might drag out for a while... and she was right, it is. That’s fine. We have a process for this; no need to be melodramatic. Biden has almost assuredly won, but first there will be some court cases and recounts simply because it was extremely close. That’s a good thing for Democracy.

> Bush vs Gore took an entire month to sort out.

That was a difference of around 500 votes out of nearly 6 million, which was around 0.009%. That's well within the range you can get with just the ordinary counting error. It is not at all uncommon for a recount to reverse a lead that small.

In addition, Florida at the time was using a lousy ballot marking system that caused many ballots to fail to register that the voter had tried to vote in the Presidential race. Neither side disputed this. The dispute was over how to address it.

Are you really comparing that to trying to challenge in several states where the difference is well outside ordinary counting error and there is no evidence of sufficient voting irregularities to come anywhere near changing the winner in those states?

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

#602

Post by mistermann »

npsimons wrote: post #583
tomjen3 wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reinstitute the draft, or national service where every young kid has to spend a year fighting along side people they didn't know before hand, far from home. Or spend a year traveling the US doing worthwhile projects (fixing up broken jungle gyms in schools) again with people they didn't know. It is a little bit less likely that you dislike heartland America when you spent a year working with Fred the Farmboy before y…

> It is a little bit less likely that you dislike heartland America when you spent a year working with Fred the Farmboy before you headed to Princeton. I find it interesting you choose this as an example, and not rather say that "Fred the Farmboy" might actually see those "librul coastal elites" or "ivory tower intellectuals" as people like himself. The latter are terms I've actually seen used. But on the topic of a…

> I find it interesting you choose this as an example, and not rather say that "Fred the Farmboy" might actually see those "librul coastal elites" or "ivory tower intellectuals" as people like himself.

I wonder, if he had instead chosen your example, would you no longer have found it interesting, but other people would then have found his new comment interesting (who did not find the one he made here interesting).

Abstractly, it is quite interesting what humans find to be interesting, and how that interest level can be so easily inverted by simply injecting of new values into various seemingly innocuous variables.

Well, I find it interesting anyways. But most other people I've encountered seem to kind of consider such topics to be....~"not appropriate for discussion in polite company", in that they often have strong negative reactions to the very idea, if not outright demanding that you cease engaging in discussion of such topics ("starting flame wars" is the formal terminology used during Overton Window enforcement) - and if you do not, they themselves will disengage from discussing the topic (while maintaining an air of extreme confidence and certainty in their alternative ideas). "Gaslighting", "whataboutism", "gish galloping", etc are some of the most common rhetorical accusations that I have experienced in my journeys (if any are given at all that is).

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

#604

Post by ulzeraj »

leppr wrote: post #493
mjfl wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ideally, you'd want to have control over people's education and social structures to prevent deviation before any censorship is even needed. Is this satire?

It's trying to explicit and bring grandparent's ideas to their logical conclusion. I dislike slippery slope-type arguments, but I fail to see how one can coherently agree with their comment and not mine.

I appreciate the sarcasm. Some responses in this thread are giving me a bad vibe. This site is full of users thinking they can somewhat engineer society towards what they think its a proper state and that aligns very well with the currant behavior of big social media corporations. I wonder when did we tech people deviated so much towards being aspiring tyrants...

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

#605

Post by 0x445442 »

matwood wrote: post #551
0x445442 wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem is not all the claims you might consider baseless actually are and neither you nor I have any way of really knowing.

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

#606

Post by howlin »

cowmoo728 wrote: post #531
npsimons wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or if its actually some shady privately funded project by billionaires seeking to influence elections. Let's not jump to conclusions, otherwise we are as guilty of the credulity we are casting on them (Soros bucks, anyone?). Until there is hard evidence of this, please don't bandy it about.

"Rebekah Mercer is funding Parler, the social-media app touted by Republican politicians and pundits that conservatives are flocking to" https://www.businessinsider.com/rebekah-mercer-funds-parler-... "[Robert] Mercer played a key role in the campaign for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by donating data analytics services to Nigel Farage. He is also a major funder of organizations supporting right-wing…

I'm pretty sure it's daughter-father, not wife-husband.

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

#607

Post by AnthonyMouse »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #524
stickyricky wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I don't believe this is true. I remember "Ye Olde Days" (TM) of the Internet. You went to an independent forum or mailing list that supported your interest (video games, music, politics) and then you argued with everyone in you…

The only community you have is your friends, and your friends usually have similar beliefs to you. So the space where you could have people with significantly different political views meet on the same terms is gone.

The point is that your friends don't always have similar beliefs to you. You don't think rednecks in the south play video games or soup up their cars or listen to rock and roll, the same as a Biden voter from Los Angeles?

So if you set up a forum for fans of the Atari, you get all kinds. They get to know each other. And then they talk about whatever.

But several things have smashed that all to pieces.

The first and main problem is that everything is a single site with millions of people now. You can go over to /r/atari and talk about Atari, but if you try to talk to any of those people about climate change they'll direct you to a different sub, which is full of entirely different people who you don't know or trust.

Then the sites that are independent are often operated by the company that makes the product. Sony might host a PlayStation forum, but they're going to boot you out for talking about politics or religion.

And then there's the fact that everything has become disposable. What do you do with your broken out of warranty Atari? Get a soldering iron. What do you do with a broken out of warranty iMac? Get a rubbish bin. But then there's nothing to build a community around, because everything is an appliance that you can't improve or repair.

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

#608

Post by zzzeek »

joezydeco wrote: post #502
hntossaccount12 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect we will continue to see services that unbundle social media's hottest topics. Social media may have created an outrage economy -- a subset of the attention economy. But like ebay, craigslist, etc, the social media platforms' broad focus means their product can't specialize when strong trends emerge. The outrage will be unbundled by niche companies. I actually think this is a good thing. Seeing conspiracy th…

I suspect we will continue to see services that unbundle social media's hottest topics. I've seen this before with Usenet groups that got too bogged down with infighting and trolls, so splinter groups formed off on handmade vBulletin/phpbb sites or wherever. They always imploded shortly afterward. A safe space eventually falls to the same splintering, just in more fractal detail. Some of them survive the implosion an…

thanks for sharing what a great read!

"And the adults who had set up Communitree were horrified, because they were being overrun by these students. The place that was founded on open access had too much open access, too much openness. They couldn’t defend themselves against their own users. The place that was founded on free speech had too much freedom. They had no way of saying, “No, that’s not the kind of free speech we meant.” But that was a requirement. In order to defend themselves against being overrun, that was something that they needed to have that they didn’t have, and in the end, they simply shut the site down."

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

#609

Post by dang »

julienreszka wrote: post #114
4bpp wrote: post #66

Relevant SSC article: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ... > The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts ar…

America was created by people who fled persecution, and turned out pretty well. It is the most attractive country on earth. What are you talking about?

Taking HN threads into nationalistic flamewar and adding personal swipes will get you banned here. If you keep posting like this we are going to have to ban you again, so please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules going forward.

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

#610

Post by alkonaut »

wolco2 wrote: post #305
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't like the stuff they post, don't follow them. This includes things that you don't think they should post - you know, the "off-topic" stuff. Them posting that stuff isn't a "problem" just because you do not appreciate some of the content.

You also get posts that they may have favourited or friend a they follow. That's when things get toxic.

No. That’s not what Twitter does. That’s something some clients do , unfortunately including the official Twitter clients.

I just see tweets from those I follow, in chronological order, with no ads.

If I saw ads, “recommended” or “trending” etc., I’d get off that client in a hurry.

Post reply on HN