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

841–850 of 889 posts

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

#841

Post by pjc50 »

coldtea wrote: post #832
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…

> the POTUS actively undermining democracy? I think the "POTUS actively undermining democracy" is a gaslighting / pearl clutching for what is a crass person but otherwise business as usual in the White House... Apparently Patriot Act, mass surveillance, Guantanamo, the "WMD", Echelon, trillion dollar bailouts, false congress testimonies, etc weren't "undermining democracy", but an old guy tweeting some braggadocio/BS…

We're downvoting you, but there is a valid point: many of those things are also bad. The false narrative that started the Iraq war had bi-partisan support and was popular with the public.

Treating everything as if there were only two sides is part of the problem. But I see dissent within the democrat party over these issues - and not within the republican party, who have supported everything that Trump has said and done.

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

#842

Post by lifeisstillgood »

confidantlake wrote: post #818
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes ...

But these are the easy edge cases. It should be trivial (it was trivial) to rebut.

The problem is not that there was no evidence Obama was Kenyan, it's that there were plenty of people who wanted to believe it. Because they did not want a Black president, or because their mental model is so far away from reality that they think it's possible for someone to cheat that huge.

Then the issue is not everyone having same facts in front of them - it's everyone being willing to accept facts, and so change their own mental models. And then we are back to politics.

Look, I fully support some system of global rebuttal. It will mean no politician can open their mouths without opposition rebuttal - but that's pretty much where we are now in mainstream media. (it's an argument that this is an attraction of online social media - there was no rebuttal (at least no rebuttal that appeared in the same timeline)

I am less happy about the idea of FAANG deleting posts - deleting criminal posts is a tough call (which crinalmlaw to use etc), deleting minsinformation - that's a huge open wound

But the issue is not misinformation - the issue is fertile ground these posts find. And that is about mental models and that is about changing peoples internal mental models of the world - that is getting others to agree with you and that is human politics - and there is no tech fix for that. That is schools and education and society and diversity and a feeling of belonging and investment in society and shared protection.

Surprised the countries with the poor welfare systems have this problem worst? Don't be.

Worried about politicians who are always facing rebuttal - just imagine a world where politicians have to treat their statements like scientific publications - we might start getting somewhere !

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

#843

Post by croh »

christophilus wrote: post #421
dustinmoris wrote: post #118

In mid October I deleted almost all my tweets and likes (but Twitter being so shit they are still showing my likes except it’s not liked anymore lol) and have not been tweeting anything anymore. I found Twitter too toxic, it made me angry with people for no reason, so I deleted all my tweets and the app. No more notifications, no more “just checking Twitter quickly”. I now go to Twitter like once a day just to have a…

I’m only a very light Twitter user, but I cull and curate my feed. It’s mostly funny, positive people in fintwit now, and it’s a good experience. I almost always learn something while flicking through. But yes, I’ve found that without careful curation, it quickly turns into a depressing cesspit. Then again, that’s not unique to Twitter. I culled my contacts in the real world when in high-school and college for the sa…

I noticed same thing some years back. Don't let the social medias work ON you, push trends on you. Ignore all suggestions. Keep it minimal and use only for your personal goals. Importantly stop notifications on cell phone.

Facebook I stopped using a while back. It gives me the feeling of universal garbage bag where everyone in a race to impress others. On twitter I follow top people from my domain and ignore everything. No political BS. In LinkedIn, I literally removed all HR connections and started to follow people whom I really adore and take direction from their career path.

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

#844

Post by throwaway29399 »

Rick1 wrote: post #386
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no hate mob in Parler, they're all conservatives, why would they hate each other. There’s no hate in the KKK. They are all white. Why would they hate each other? See the problem with this construction?

Everybody likes the "in-group" and hates the rest. Although the word hate tends to mainly be used about other people.

Absolutely not.

You are implying that hating people based on something they cannot control (e.g. ethnicity) is normal.

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

#845

Post by throwaway29399 »

ttt0 wrote: post #742
gameswithgo wrote: post #649

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…

> once your "club" gains too much traction you are still going to be deplatformed by domain registers, DDoS protection services, payment processors etc.

I follow the topic carefully and I've never seen domains being taken down just because people were simply discussing conservative politics.

Hosting platforms love getting paid and tend to block extremist "clubs" like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)

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

#846

Post by permo-w »

thinkingemote wrote: post #321
victorbstan wrote: post #242

Bigotry and hate speech should not have a platform. I’ve been reading a lot of comments here and it seems like most of them aren’t even critical or touch on the point of NOT allowing certain kind of speech or false information sharing. In Germany nazi related sympathizing, propaganda is banned from social media. But some how it’s ok in USA? I honestly fail to understand how little criticism there is of unfettered fre…

> I honestly fail to understand Do you think its possible for you to understand? Would you want to understand and learn new things? If you knew that honestly understanding would lead to mental pain and anguish as you literally would have to admit you were wrong in your past judgements and admit your view of the world was wrong, would you still want to understand? Because it will cause you pain. It even might lose you…

this here looks to me like a neo-Nazi that’s spent some time learning persuasive techniques. This is why the internet is so terrifying.

Any bad actor like this can have their manipulative manifestos seen by thousands of people every day.

Whether or not it’s actually persuasive - it shouldn’t be, they’re pretty much rephrasing the sentiment “don’t be afraid of this”, “be open-minded”, “take the red pill” over and over - it’s at the very least attempting to be

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

#847

Post by thinkingemote »

_opc6 wrote: post #656
thinkingemote wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bigotry is the failure to understand the other. It's literally in the definition! To understand the other is to win against bigotry. Don't destroy the world with bigotry disguised as righteousness. Most peace processes start with the humanising of the other and the identification of shared commonalities. Bigotry is against peace and coexistence. To advocate for not understanding people is to destroy the world. I get…

I understand you wish things to be one way. In my opinion, bigotry in mainstream public discourse is never going to happen. It's a feature of capitalism and why you won't see gas vans as long as we remain a capitalist society. But don't let me dissuade you from advocating for your beliefs.

It's ironic that most people will complain about polarization in politics at the same time as strengthening that very polarization. I would like less polarisation. Do you?

Is wanting less polarisation and more understanding wanting the world one way? Seems like it might be the opposite. Seems also that those who are polarised want the world one way in opposition to the other group who wants the world the other. Is there a way to undo that? Would that way be painful? I think most people don't like to change their minds. It's painful. But just because it's painful, doesn't mean it's not possible or that it might be positive.

How do we achieve polarization?

How is actual peace is the real world achieved?

Wanting things to be one way is bigotry. I wish things to be understood more and less bigotry!

What are my beliefs? How have I advocated for them? I see only an appeal for common ground, understanding and therefore less bigotry overall.

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

#848

Post by thinkingemote »

permo-w wrote: post #846
thinkingemote wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I honestly fail to understand Do you think its possible for you to understand? Would you want to understand and learn new things? If you knew that honestly understanding would lead to mental pain and anguish as you literally would have to admit you were wrong in your past judgements and admit your view of the world was wrong, would you still want to understand? Because it will cause you pain. It even might lose you…

this here looks to me like a neo-Nazi that’s spent some time learning persuasive techniques. This is why the internet is so terrifying. Any bad actor like this can have their manipulative manifestos seen by thousands of people every day. Whether or not it’s actually persuasive - it shouldn’t be, they’re pretty much rephrasing the sentiment “don’t be afraid of this”, “be open-minded”, “take the red pill” over and over…

You are wrong in that I am not a neo nazi. I am saddened by your comment. As the HN rules suggest, try to be charitable. I am not a bad actor.

Does empathy and understanding other people lead to Nazism etc or away from extremism? Does encouraging less thought and consideration about your neighbour make the world better? I don't think so.

Explicitly how do we change a person's mind away from extremism? Is it possible? Will they want to? See my above comment in that light. Understanding others is hard but it's possible.

Is it possible for humans to be less polarised? If so, perhaps understanding and empathy is one way.

I try to allow people to change their minds and allow peace and more empathy. Real change comes from inside. I cannot change another's mind for them. Some see this change as painful and some others are fearful of people changing their minds as it means less in group cohesion. If opposite groups are less coherent is that better than advocating for more polarisation?

Back to the original question: If you do not understand what is going on, do you think it's possible to understand? If yes, do you want to understand? if yes, how does one understand something? If no, how does not wanting to understand something affect the world? Does less or more understanding help or hinder lives?

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

#849

Post by permo-w »

satisfaction wrote: post #753

I listened to a national news correspondent say, "...are not being censored they are just cleaning things up...". It's "cleaning things up" when the result benefits your cause but censorship when it harms your cause. It's sickening how editorialized national news has become. Why not just report the facts, "...twitter has deleted these tweets..."? Why does some talking head on television need to try to tell me what I…

I agree with what you’re saying, but the answer(s) to that last question are fairly obvious

First I’d say that if you’re running a 24 hour news channel, you need to fill the time with something, and people would complain equally if you just rephrased and repeated the facts over and over. Second, perhaps you don’t, and perhaps I don’t either, but a lot of people want to hear opinions on the news. They want context, and how certain groups view the news, and I suspect, more than anything, they also just enjoy hearing opinions. So the news companies are meeting a demand.

Now I’m quite a left-leaning, pro-govt-intervention person, so I would support government regulation of the news to prevent them playing too heavily to this demand.

However I know that a lot of HN users are not like this, and I’m curious to see where they think the solution could lie

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

#850

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

iso1210 wrote: post #371
secondcoming wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hope Netflix learns from the awfulness of Star Trek Discovery.

Discovery had a ropey start with the secrecy in the first few episodes, but it really grew in S2, and S3 is awesome.

As a Star Trek fan and appreciator of well-written TV, I can't agree with this at all. The first season was hot garbage with maybe 3 watchable episodes, S2 was a little better but most of that was Pike. S3, despite finally being free of continuity baggage, is so far about as poorly written as S2.
Post reply on HN