Live data from Hacker News

Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

text.npr.org

811–820 of 889 posts

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

#811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increasingly, the medium is the tribe. It’s not clear there are solutions to this because aligning on tribal beliefs is how we evolved to survive!

This is exactly it. The instant communication has created instant reinforcement for the tribe. It's something our minds aren't really ready to handle. I agree there may not be a solution, given the technology we now have and the minds we'll never improve upon in our lifetimes. But I think we have to try...

That and you can instantly find a huge tribe. In the past you had to deal with others around you as well, which challenged ideas. Now you plug in to this huge tribe of anonymous people around the world and assume you’ve found the truth.

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

#812

I'm getting a lot of value out of Mastodon. I found a medium sized instance who's moderator I trust, and whose culture matches matches what I want out of a social media website. Not having posts algorithmically shoved into your face helps a lot, because it is clear where posts on you home timeline are coming from and thus easier to customise your experience by blocking people. The main problem with mastodon is that i…

Your diverse group isn't very diverse.

There's nothing especially wrong with keeping your feeds focused on like minded people, so long as you understand you're not the world.

The alternative for many might very well be attempting to hunt down and censor anything they find objectionable, so their feeds can be both representative, and clean.

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

#813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think it’s down to who you follow. Isn't there the problem where your favorite "celebrity" you follow posts nice stuff but when election or some other event is happening they start posting a ton of "off-topic" stuff ?

Absolutely. You follow humans. Whole humans. They have every right to attract followers with technical tweets and then suddenly anger half their followers by being political come election year. I don’t think it’s possible to create a safe space from opinions you disagree with. What happens on twitter could happen with your friend or uncle. On Twitter it’s at least easy to unfollow someone and it’s not a personal trag…

> You follow humans. Whole humans.

You follow Twitter accounts. Those can be thematic slices of humans, whole humans, aggregates of humans, or lots of different things.

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

#814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm mostly a classic liberal person, think founding fathers, enlightenment era. And to be honest, I'm curious about what your definition of conservative is? To me, there's only two way to define it. Either the old way, where conservative means you are a feudalist, monarchist, theocrat, oligarch, autocrat, statist, fascist, etc. Basically you want to go back to a pre-liberal establishment style of society, and are opp…

I think your dichotomy of either you’re a liberal conservative or you’re a fascist illustrates my point pretty well. You simply cannot imagine that someone could be a non-liberal without being evil. By conservative here i meant really anyone who is not 100% onboard with democratic party doctrine, which is enough to be ostracized in SV today.

It seem you're trying to avoid telling me what you value. If you don't value democracy, reason, liberty and equality, then what do you value?

I listed a lot of known alternatives, you could value ultranationalism with strict traditional societal and economic rule like fascists do, or you could value white supremacy and rule over other races like nazis, or you could value biblical rule of Christian interpretation like theocrats, etc.

Now you seem to say, no it's none of the many alternatives I listed, okay, but what is it?

And yes, I actually can't imagine what else you could be than one of the many non-liberal alternative I listed.

> You simply cannot imagine that someone could be a non-liberal without being evil

That's because it is hard for me to think that someone who doesn't value democracy, doesn't value reason, doesn't value liberty, doesn't value equality, will be willing to accept that I live my life as I please, with a fair chance at opportunity, riches, power, and happyness. So it seems anyone without those value will be trying to have authority and rule over me one way or another, and not with my best interest at heart. It seems natural to consider evil someone whose likely to do you wrong.

> By conservative here i meant really anyone who is not 100% onboard with democratic party doctrine, which is enough to be ostracized in SV today

So by conservative, you mean a republican voter? Why not say republican party voter or something super clear and unambiguous then? Why does the article say "conservative" ? Is it not because republican are conservative? And now I'm back at my original confusion, what kind of conservative is the republican party? Liberal conservative? Or anti-liberal?

I find the narrative against liberalism dangerous. Liberalism is what the western democracies, including the US are based on, and it's what made them prosper and a great place to live. So am I suppose to believe there is a strong anti-liberal movement in the US? Pushing for a return to nazism, facism, monarchies, theocracies, oligarchies, feudalism, etc. ? If not, it only takes people to say, hey woa, hold on, you got.it all wrong, we're full on liberal, just conservative as in my second definition above. But the fact that even when I ask people don't say that, but seem to circle around and evade the question, makes me feel it might be the former.

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

#816
post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why is that the problem? r/conservative can start any club they like. reddit can run any business they like.

It's a problem, because it doesn't end here. Even if you make your own service, once your "club" gains too much traction you are still going to be deplatformed by domain registers, DDoS protection services, payment processors etc. It's also a free speech issue. The main purpose of free speech is the ability to criticize your government and social media have obviously a huge influence on elections. As we move towards…

This is contradictory. If you tell Twitter what its platform can/can't support you are violating its freedom of speech. The 1st amendment applies to the government restricting speech - not private corporations.

In the 1800s not everyone had a newspaper to spread their ideas. That is not a violation of freedom of speech for the ones who can't afford a newspaper. They aren't entitled to a platform - they're entitled to the government not restricting their platform.

What about a property on a busy road - a sign there has more impact than a sign at a house off the beaten path. You're essentially arguing that because that property has more visibility, it is unfair to the other who doesn't have that same location. This just isn't how the constitution works.

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

#817
post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's missing half the country , many of whom are not part of hate groups.

There is no “teacher” who is going to grade you on how representative your social media feed is of the country. The point of creating an online feed could be entertainment, to arm you with the information and means of communication necessary to accomplish some goals you take part in, etc., but there is no point in trying to achieve some representative feed. You will not be rewarded for it.

The original discussion was about the diversity of the feed, so...

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

#818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if those that think the world is round and those who think it is flat both think the moderator is biased he must be doing something right? Both sides are wrong because technically the earth isn't exactly flat? What about climate change deniers vs climate scientists?

I was thinking "Democrats and Republicans" not Flat earthers vs ... umm everyone else. The problem is not the obvious cases. Child porn is a crime in every country, it can be hunted down online. Society generally agrees on that. Similarly for flat earthers. 99% of people in a pub or street will roll their eyes at this shit. It's only because it's all over youtube and so are we that we think it's big. Problems where m…

Saying that the president was born in Kenya is not running facts through different mental models, it is disinformation. Saying there was widespread fraud in the election with zero evidence is disinformation. Saying jews were behind 9/11 is disinformation. If we can't recognize that these are weaponized attacks, not differences in opinion, then we can't defend against them.

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

#819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Block early, block often. Think twice before following someone.

And disable retweets.

What’s the point of that? You must use Twitter quite differently than I do. Retweets are most of the commentary I consume and produce.

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

#820
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what? People should be free to discuss stupid and wrong ideas. And they are, but if they want to do it on Twitter, Twitter gets to have its say as well. However, the conspiracy theorists don't seem to like it when Twitter exercises its rights by labeling their tweets, like in this case. As for why this matters, people who want to live in functioning democracies have a strong interest in making sure the truth pre…

"Twitter gets to have it's say" Free speech is more than just a law... it's an idea and a philosophy. Part of making sure "truth prevails" is having open discourse about topics. That involves people with "Wrong" ideas the ability to talk. When platforms like Facebook and Twitter become the arbiter of what's "right"? Then people will leave those platforms because lawfully they have the "right" to censor their platform…

> Part of making sure "truth prevails" is having open discourse about topics. That involves people with "Wrong" ideas the ability to talk.

Yes, but for that to work, the discourse has to between people who are actually seeking out the truth and who have the ability to recognize it. Dead-enders and nutjobs fighting to spread (often obvious) lies do not qualify.

Post reply on HN