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

761–770 of 889 posts

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

#761

Post by mensetmanusman »

watwut wrote: post #712
hobs wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a controversial opinion as far as I can tell - https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/11/23/1-trust-in-g... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/how-ame... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/opinion/sunday/vietnam-th...

It is not really historians and it does not really push the narrative of government "given up on citizens as reaction to them not trusting government". Government and citizens are not even two super distinct entities, government are citizens and is put in place by citizens.

Generally one side of America so gave up on government that a guiding principal of ‘starve the beast’ (that has done so much damage to our young) became dominant.

Once people with that world view actually enter government, they don’t have a lot of desire to use government for what it could be used for in terms of helping citizens instead of consolidating powers as a function of lobbying dollars.

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

#762

Post by renewiltord »

forest_dweller wrote: post #746
renewiltord wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not interested in who large media say are dissenters or conspiracy theorists because I can make that judgment myself: it being trivial on first listen. Like I don't actually need someone to tell me Qanon dudes are crazy. I just have to listen to the Qanon dudes themselves. Of course they are convinced they are dissenters exposing the corruption in Big Pizza. Heroes, I'm sure. That's the funny part. You keep bring…

> I'm not interested in who large media say are dissenters or conspiracy theorists because I can make that judgment myself: it being trivial on first listen. Yet you are repeating exactly the same things as they do in the same manner by focusing on the crazy people. I have said many times in this thread that are always those that are on the fridge and they do not represent the whole. Dismissing all dissent (which is…

> Then why are you repeating what they say point for point?

For the obvious reason that if you go read voat and gab that's, um, literally what those dudes are saying. Like, I didn't make up the shit about pizzas, man. Sometimes some things are just fact.

I'm sure it must be very convincing that I am in cahoots with CNN weather because we both think it's a sunny day in San Francisco today. Or maybe Big Calendar and I are conspiring to decide that today is Nov 15, a Saturday. After all, we're saying the same thing. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

And who cares if you don't believe any of this. It doesn't really matter. The SNR is everything. One guy here or there is a speck of dust on the vinyl.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go attend to my master. His nictitating membrane is giving him some trouble this morning. And I've got to learn from him what day we're going to decide tomorrow is.

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

#763

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

forest_dweller wrote: post #708
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As for "over turning democracy". They see that there was a lot of odd things that seemed to happening upto and including election night. Wow, seems like the people who voted for a candidate who said that mail-in voting was a hive of fraud for six months before an election were less likely to vote by mail, leading to a huge number of mail-in ballots being cast for the opposing candidate. Odd. Like I'm not sure where…

> Wow, seems like the people who voted for a candidate who said that mail-in voting was a hive of fraud for six months before an election were less likely to vote by mail, leading to a huge number of mail-in ballots being cast for the opposing candidate. Odd. That isn't what they are complaining about though e.g There are saying that some areas have very high turnout (over 95%) in specific counties. Even in countries…

Same day registration appears to account for most of this. Normally the registered voters count is from the start of a month, so same day registration can make the numbers look really weird.

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

#764

Post by whimsicalism »

DFHippie wrote: post #632
motohagiography wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument that we need to stop tribalism to preserve society is both an un-self-conscious conservativism and a more pernicious appeal to cultural homogenization, which is what the dominance of the platforms caused, and which these innovations are a reaction to. There is no diversity in 140 characters of closely monitored claptrap, and there is no risk and opportunity in trust and safety. There is no culture in a h…

> The very idea that we need to suppress ideas for fear that the ignorant masses may be exposed to them is a fatuous, aspirational elitism that is the very reason the platforms have become stagnant. There are ideas and then there are lies. I think the problem is the lies, not the ideas. If an idea, like that the Earth is flat, can only find support in lies, the idea will go away if people aren't free to lie. To be cl…

Yes, but people who get annoyed by someone else's ideas just calls them "lies."

I, for instance, watched in astonishment as a relatively straightforward story about Hunter Biden's emails somehow became a Russian disinformation campaign.

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

#765

Post by motohagiography »

calinet6 wrote: post #685
sneak wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have, and the users, for the most part, chose the screamy, thirsty, censored, algorithmic ones.

The worst argument for designing an experience is that users want it. We can do far better. But I get your point. Realistically this has to be a societal change that demands better social media platforms, not something just thrown into the market with no demand.

> The worst argument for designing an experience is that users want it.

This statement may be the crux of disagreement in the culture wars as well. To me this is an alien and hostile idea against all that can be good. I'm sure you have some reasoning based on an experience behind it, but it's very likely one of those irreconcilable differences of interests that we have conventions and civilization to navigate and negotiate around. I don't think we persuade each other, but rather, negotiate boundaries. Those boundaries are what we understand as tolerance.

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

#766

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#767

Post by crispyambulance »

vp8989 wrote: post #547
alexilliamson wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am guessing the difference is the level of control of the echoes.

Well presumably the parent to my comment is implying that echo chambers are only problematic if they are "imposed" upon you by "the algorithm", which I would disagree with. The problem is that people have become hyper-partisan en masse and whether they arrived there because of "the algorithm" or because they intentionally filter out sources they disagree with ... it doesn't really matter. https://www.allsides.com/fil…

> whether they arrived there because of "the algorithm" or because they intentionally filter out sources they disagree with ... it doesn't really matter.

At the end of the day, we're each responsible for making sense of the world from news sources. People get too hung up on the concept of "unbiased". I think that's an unrealistic ideal when it comes to politics. It's like wanting to eat fruit but always expecting it to be peeled for you, meticulously, and placed on your plate without blemishes or bruises.

While it's certainly possible to responsibly and critically "consume a feed" that has been algorithmically generated for you based on your history of media consumption behavior and your social network attributes-- it's much more efficient to seek out high quality sources of information.

That doesn't mean block out everything you disagree with, but it does mean block out noise and consider what you give your attention to. You can't do that easily when a third party is dumping garbage onto the page for the sake of motivations that have little to do with informing you.

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

#768

Post by forest_dweller »

renewiltord wrote: post #762
forest_dweller wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not interested in who large media say are dissenters or conspiracy theorists because I can make that judgment myself: it being trivial on first listen. Yet you are repeating exactly the same things as they do in the same manner by focusing on the crazy people. I have said many times in this thread that are always those that are on the fridge and they do not represent the whole. Dismissing all dissent (which is…

> Then why are you repeating what they say point for point? For the obvious reason that if you go read voat and gab that's, um, literally what those dudes are saying. Like, I didn't make up the shit about pizzas, man. Sometimes some things are just fact. I'm sure it must be very convincing that I am in cahoots with CNN weather because we both think it's a sunny day in San Francisco today. Or maybe Big Calendar and I…

Lots more Strawmen you have built. You must like building them.

> For the obvious reason that if you go read voat and gab that's, um, literally what those dudes are saying. Like, I didn't make up the shit about pizzas, man. Sometimes some things are just fact.

I've been on Gab in the past and while there were some that said that stuff like that, most weren't.

> Like, I didn't make up the shit about pizzas, man.

Again keep on bringing up the crazy stuff while ignoring the stuff that is plausible. That is very disingenous.

> I'm sure it must be very convincing that I am in cahoots with CNN weather because we both think it's a sunny day in San Francisco today. Or maybe Big Calendar and I are conspiring to decide that today is Nov 15, a Saturday. After all, we're saying the same thing. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

I never that you were in cahoots with a news media. I said that you were repeating the same lines in the same manner. It is obvious that you are just repeating what they've said and then pretending on here that you are not.

> Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go attend to my master. His nictitating membrane is giving him some trouble this morning. And I've got to learn from him what day we're going to decide tomorrow is.

Can't engage in an honest manner at all can you. It is all very tiresome.

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

#769

Post by forest_dweller »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #763
forest_dweller wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wow, seems like the people who voted for a candidate who said that mail-in voting was a hive of fraud for six months before an election were less likely to vote by mail, leading to a huge number of mail-in ballots being cast for the opposing candidate. Odd. That isn't what they are complaining about though e.g There are saying that some areas have very high turnout (over 95%) in specific counties. Even in countries…

Same day registration appears to account for most of this. Normally the registered voters count is from the start of a month, so same day registration can make the numbers look really weird.

As I said. I don't know. I am not even an American. However that is one of many things that were quite odd.

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

#770

Post by renewiltord »

robswc wrote: post #752
renewiltord wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Twitter quite a bit and there's no politics on it. Mostly AI stuff and the musings of my friends. Twitter only gives you stuff from people you follow and one level past. Of course not using it is a good option but ultimately what you get from Twitter is what you put in.

>I use Twitter quite a bit and there's no politics on it. Sure. It does depend on who you follow and if you choose to click on things so again it is my original sin to try to have productive conversations... so yes, if I choose to put myself in a bubble on twitter, I probably wouldn't see that stuff... but I tend to click on articles or discussions on any social media. I "try" to use it as intended. Just look up "may…

Sure, I don't want to convince you to use a tool or not use a tool because we each must make that decision for ourselves. If you would find yourself searching Twitter for "mayos", "yts", or "white people", then I can see why you don't enjoy it and I can see why you don't want to use Twitter. That's a very reasonable decision.

I just wanted you to have the information that there are certain ways to use the tool to get good SNR. If you decide that using the tool in those ways is not worth it to you, that would be reasonable as well and I won't try to convince you otherwise. If you already had that information, then it was just wasted effort on my part, which I'm willing to accept.

Post reply on HN