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

861–870 of 889 posts

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

#861

Post by confidantlake »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #858
confidantlake wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lea…

Should HN not define their own content moderation rules? My view is that governments should have some general moderation rules, no death threats, no CP, ect. Sites should be able to have stricter moderation rules, no claiming that Obama was born in Kenya.

I personally prefer smaller communities like forums such as this one, slack groups, or other forums, compared to Facebook or twitter.

I am not sure how a W3C standard for tagging a URI comment would work. Aren't a lot of URIs not even opinion/fact based things? Like if my uri is a product on Amazon or a piece of sheet music there wouldn't be any rebuttals right? But idk seems interesting, would like to see if it worked.

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

#862

Post by twalla »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #745
BrianOnHN wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Because it's missing hate groups?

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

This reads like you're implying anyone right of center cant be gay, into renewable energy, technology or the arts/philosophy.

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

#863

Post by ttt0 »

throwaway29399 wrote: post #845
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…

> 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)

Wasn't gab kicked off from their domain registrar?

I don't know much about Parler, but going just by what people are saying, it seems just like twitter but for conservatives, so it's no good either. Not sure what gab is now up to, but from what I remember, it was just a free speech site. They had some rules like no doxing, but other than that they never banned anyone for anything. You could say anything you want no matter what your politics are, as long as you didn't violate the law. So the issue for me is not really "conservative clubs", but that you will get targeted by the companies up the food chain, just by allowing free speech to be exercised.

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

#864

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

ttt0 wrote: post #857
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

Providing a service to fit the definition of a unit of society is not the same as forcing endorsement of a particular point of view, and even so, there is no law requiring social media from offering fair POVs.

You're arguing for a fairness doctrine - e.g. Fox News should be forced to show the other side an equal amount of time.

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

#865

Post by lifeisstillgood »

confidantlake wrote: post #861
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lea…

Should HN not define their own content moderation rules? My view is that governments should have some general moderation rules, no death threats, no CP, ect. Sites should be able to have stricter moderation rules, no claiming that Obama was born in Kenya. I personally prefer smaller communities like forums such as this one, slack groups, or other forums, compared to Facebook or twitter. I am not sure how a W3C standa…

I think there needs to be baseline levels yes - Inwoukd argue that one of these things is that if a platform enables public publishing (still to be defined!) it must have some rebuttal mechanism, and implement some level of censorship (at the criminal level). This means for example I cannot post (in the UK) child porm or threats or hate speech. Dang would have to delete it. But additionally if i post for example that Democrats stole votes from Kent County, HN should have a means for you to flag it, and link that flag to some useful site about how correlations actually work.

It would change the nature of HN slightly yes, but it could be done with little impact - I think. But having some floor level of debate seems like a social necessity.

PS The Indian issue with WhatsApp a couple of years back makes defining "publish" quite difficult if you can manage to create murderous mobs with opt in messaging systems....

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

#866

Post by ttt0 »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #864
ttt0 wrote: post #857

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

Providing a service to fit the definition of a unit of society is not the same as forcing endorsement of a particular point of view, and even so, there is no law requiring social media from offering fair POVs. You're arguing for a fairness doctrine - e.g. Fox News should be forced to show the other side an equal amount of time.

That's a really weird way of looking at this. HN is not endorsing my point of view by letting me publish comments here. Isn't that what the Section 230 is all about, by the way?

I know there is no law preventing social media from censoring people. If there was, we wouldn't be arguing about this right now. What I'm saying is that free speech should be extended to social media.

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

#867

Post by throwaway122378 »

Biganon wrote: post #184
throwaway122378 wrote: post #7

In a group chat one friend asked if they’ve heard about Parler. Another responded “Yeah it’s a new app for right wing circle jerk” That alone is the reason Parler exist. Anything that goes against the views of the liberal left is automatically deemed trash/conspiracy.

Please go read voat's frontpage and then tell us it's a healthy place. Parler will become the exact same cesspool.

Did I mention Voat? Completely unrelated. And using your prediction to say one thing will become another is also useless.

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

#868

Post by gameswithgo »

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…

Maybe if everyone from reddit to domain registras thinks you are out of your mind and dangerous, you should either consider some self reflection, or spend your own money to distribute your message.

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

#869

Post by ttt0 »

gameswithgo wrote: post #868
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…

Maybe if everyone from reddit to domain registras thinks you are out of your mind and dangerous, you should either consider some self reflection, or spend your own money to distribute your message.

I often do self reflection and I still think I am right. Censorship is dangerous. I know, crazy thing to say, right?
Post reply on HN