161–170 of 1001 posts
Parler, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook were definitely used to storm Congress. Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook also were definitely used to burn down parts of Minneapolis, Chicago, and LA. Massive Big Tech conglomerates must be busted through antitrust enforcement and Section 230 must be updated to ban predatory algorithms which have inflamed 7 years of sectarian chaos. It's not a free speech issue:…
I’m so done with all of this. It’s time to break them up. Who is “them”? All of them.
There's an amusing irony in the downvotes in this thread. The champions of free-speech angry that Apple might ban a platform for speech that ultimately led to an attempted insurrection? These champions of free speech seem to be agressively trying to silence anybody happy about this news.
You're proposing to remove a very large, very alienated group's last public channel to express themselves peacefully. This risks further escalation. This is compounded with the stark contrast to how the protests were handled this summer.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
* 5 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24082241
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're proposing to remove a very large, very alienated group's last public channel to express themselves peacefully. This risks further escalation. This is compounded with the stark contrast to how the protests were handled this summer.
They are not expressing themselves peacefully is the issue. They are calling for armed insurrection.
Threats and actions to commit treason should be handled by authorities and prosecuted. But someone saying they don't believe the election results should not be silenced. Its their right to free speech and the US constitution guarantees it.
We had 4 years of major media and almost all journalists saying Russia stole/meddled with our election and none of them was criticized as saying they are trying to deliberately sabotage democracy or silenced via social media platforms. Lets also not forget the "resist" movement which was to openly defy a democratically elected president, is that treason? No its free speech.
The whole reason you had a bunch of desperate crazies storming congress is an extreme effort to silence speech and whole communities by big tech and the media. Happy content people that are doing well and are well represented do not do these actions, things are not going well in the this country and censorship about ideas someone does not like is like dousing a blazing inferno with gasoline.
There's an amusing irony in the downvotes in this thread. The champions of free-speech angry that Apple might ban a platform for speech that ultimately led to an attempted insurrection? These champions of free speech seem to be agressively trying to silence anybody happy about this news.
You're proposing to remove a very large, very alienated group's last public channel to express themselves peacefully. This risks further escalation. This is compounded with the stark contrast to how the protests were handled this summer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're proposing to remove a very large, very alienated group's last public channel to express themselves peacefully. This risks further escalation. This is compounded with the stark contrast to how the protests were handled this summer.
there is absolutely nothing peaceful about this https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1347609631527489537
If you are a liberal / progressive and your outlook is medium to long-term, this is the last thing you want Apple to do. Denying people their voice makes them more dangerous. Let's give them a means to vent out / express themselves. Violent subgroups / individuals can be addressed, but please don't deny the __entire__ opposition their voice. The last thing you want is for the conservative movement to be hosted on a C…
Taking it as a given that Apple has the right to control what software people run on the IPhones that they own. And taking it as a given that we have apparently decided aggressively deplatforming these people is the right action (which I also disagree with in general [1] - but my objection doesn't actually apply in this case). I'm not sure that I see why Apple controlling it's platform is different than reddit/facebook/twitter/youtube controlling their platform, and if there is no relevant distinction then this seems like reasonable corporate speech.