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

851–860 of 889 posts

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

#851

Post by tomjen3 »

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 choose the example because I assumed that there would be more people here who would be "coastal elites" than farm boys.

In addition I think that if you are destined for the elites then it is more important that you understand (really understand) the life of the others, than if are apprenticing to be an electrician.

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

#852

Post by mcphage »

nkrisc wrote: post #679
timpattinson wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if the system was designed to prevent a popular but unfit candiate from becoming president, it's been broken since 2016.

The winning candidate in 2016 wasn't even popular: he lost the popular vote.

The popular candidate that the Electoral College prevented from becoming President was Clinton, it just turns out it's easier for an unfit candidate to win via the Electoral College than it is for an unfit candidate to win via the poplar vote.

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

#853

Post by confidantlake »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #842
confidantlake wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 havin…

Education was part of it but isn't a silver bullet. I had coworkers that espoused both the 9/11 and the Kenya thing, despite it being easy to rebut. Both were highly educated individuals. https://www.gwern.net/docs/technology/2005-shirky-agroupisit... makes the case that there is no hard distinction between social problems and tech problems in online communication, the two are intertwined. This medium itself has moderation, if you tried posting either of the above two conspiracies as facts, you would be flagged and downvoted. That is what makes this forum readable instead of a dumpster fire. If Facebook or twitter did the same, I don't see how that would be an open wound. I don't think facebook and twitter owe people the ability to run misinformation campaigns against jewish people, black people, or anyone else. If you want to do that, go post it on your own blog, email someone, or call them.

Countries with poor welfare systems are that way in large part because there is propaganda against them. Welfare in the US is painted as communist. Same thing with education.

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

#854

Post by bmcahren »

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…

You seem to have engaged with this content and followed networks of people who also engage. My twitter is a very engineering-forward happy place. Sorry you got the you know what end of the algorithm stick. I feel in some way this was self-fulfilling?

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

#855

Post by bmcahren »

leephillips wrote: post #396
alkonaut wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s down to who you follow. First, never ever read “trends” or random tweets. Never trust Twitters official app to show you anything useful. Using third party apps also saves you from ads. Second and most importantly, follow a set of users that are interesting, friendly, and who don’t engage publicly with trolls. It’s a magnificent tool for staying up to date with a narrow topic like a niche technology. Just…

The trick is not to read the tweets of the people you follow, and not to follow the people you read, necessarily: https://lee-phillips.org/howtotwitter/

Twitter does a good job of highlighting the important posts someone makes rather than requiring I curate for myself. It also has brought to my attention the important people in the network of those I follow introducing me to insightful people I might not have otherwise known.

I prefer twitter's method to RSS feeds. I need curation with the amount of content that my list publishes.

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

#856

Post by equalunique »

rekabis wrote: post #840

> and you start fact-checking, you're introducing bias Fact-checking is biased? TIL that the Scientific Method, critical thinking and bullshit detection is “biased”. Wow. The depths of conservative delusions know no bounds.

Facts can be cherry-picked.

Half-truths can and slightly inaccurate statements can be construed as either hard-TRUE or hard-FALSE.

On the opposite side of the political spectrum, "nuance" in political discussion is an accepted reality.

Gatekeeping is acknowledged as a problem - we know those who position themselves as arbiters of truth are not beyond scrutiny.

It would be contradictory to know these are true but also believe conservatives are deluded in believing that fact-checking is fraught with bias.

>Indeed, conservatives have long claimed that fact-checking was riddled with anti-conservative bias and even conflicts of interest (as when PolitiFact, one of Facebook’s six United States-based fact-checkers, shot down a critique of a Clinton Foundation initiative without disclosing that one of that program’s principal funders was a major donor to PolitiFact’s parent organization, the Poynter Institute).

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/310849-who-will...

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

#857

Post by ttt0 »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #816
ttt0 wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For example in EU banks are legally required to provide you a basic service. I don't see how this is contradictory to freedom of speech.

> 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.

In US there were a couple of court cases that ruled that free speech applies to places that are technically private. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

And if I'm not mistaken, you already have plenty of FCC regulations regarding means of communications like TV, radio and internet, that probably could be construed as violations of either freedom of speech or freedom of association.

We could spend all day arguing about legalities and whether it's constitutional or not. Under current laws it is in fact exactly as you say, but this is a huge problem. I live in one of post-soviet countries, so it shouldn't be a surprise that a lot of people here, including me, are against socialism. But I have to admit that the left has a point. Or at the very least had a point, since I sometimes encounter people who will say how capitalists are evil and then proceed to explain how social media are a private property and corporations are free to do whatever they want with them. If we don't do something about this, we might very soon find out how truly dystopian capitalism can be.

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

#858

Post by lifeisstillgood »

confidantlake wrote: post #853
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 havin…

Education was part of it but isn't a silver bullet. I had coworkers that espoused both the 9/11 and the Kenya thing, despite it being easy to rebut. Both were highly educated individuals. https://www.gwern.net/docs/technology/2005-shirky-agroupisit... makes the case that there is no hard distinction between social problems and tech problems in online communication, the two are intertwined. This medium itself has mode…

I was hoping to be clearer - FAANG absolutely should be tagging misinformation with some label or correction. [x] Its deleting posts that gets sticky. And yes your point about Twitter et al lending people some of their reputation / Google juice is a very underrated part of the problem. But how do we define content moderation rules online? Who sets those rules, where and when do they apply? These are not things to leave to private companies with ad revenue.

[x] In fact I think this is too important to leave to tech companies. I would like to see some W3C standard for tagging a URI - that is a distributed comments system where the browser / client SHOULD / MUST show that "in the cloud" there are rebuttals to this statement / position. So the rebuttal is seen where the rebutted is shown. The more views a rebuttal gets the more prominent it is in the list of rebuttals.

Yes it will mean everything everywhere has rebuttal but ... that's kind of true anyway. And I like the upthread approach of a common (W3C) distributed moderation (ie a jury of ones randomly selected peers). I think the idea seems workable - but more study is needed :-)

Call it the Other Side Protocol.

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

#859

Post by sleepysysadmin »

Admittedly, I'm not familiar with Parler.

>even though there is no evidence for these allegations of systemic anti-conservative bias.

All there is evidence of is them removing misinformation. Like banning the NYPost after they fabricated a ridiculous story how Hunter Biden flew across the country to give his laptop to a computer repair guy who 'found' all this data. As MSNBC says, NYPost is a conspiracy theory peddling tabloid.

Though I do agree Twitter hasn't done enough to remove the hate and misinformation.

Sure, Twitter did ban lots of people who were defending that racist maga hat kid. The Native American man he was taunting explained what happened very well. His explanation that the boys surrounded him and threatened him is so typical of MAGA people. I also agree that anyone who threatened to kill the maga hit kid shouldn't be punished.

Banning the people who called Jussie Smollet a hoax, after he was attacked by Trump voters. That was justice.

I also agree with all the transphobes who have been banned. They should never be allowed to use the wrong pronoun, or use a deadname, or for that matter just say things like women have 2 X chromesomes. All these abusive people have no place on Twitter.

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

#860

Post by Consultant32452 »

tshaddox wrote: post #824
Consultant32452 wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK is in the process of a nonviolent divorce with Brexit.

The EU has an explicit process for members to leave nonviolently. The United States has, well, one example of an extreme opposite of that.

The former USSR dissolved rather peacefully at the end of the cold war.
Post reply on HN