We should be careful with sweeping generalizations, especially when in this case, it may rob us of the opportunity to achieve reconciliation via frank discussions with people of opposing views. Most people that voted for Donald Trump are not Nazis. Most people on Parler are not Nazis. Most of the protests over the past several years were not violent.
Which is why Apple is saying to Parler "Remove the Nazis and you can stay" rather than immediately removing it. If it is removed, it is because Parler felt allowing Nazis to use their platform was important enough to have their app removed.
Someone brought an interesting perspective in another thread and I can't shake it off. The other side keeps deplatforming them. Their legal cases are rejected. The mainstream media refuses to take them seriously. We're not even listening to them, because it's science and they're *ists if they disagree. We're not debating anymore. We just assume we're right. We are slowly squeezing a significant segment of the populat…
We already know from history what happens when large groups are disenfranchised from the public sphere. Violence. Lots of it. And once it starts, it's not easily stopped. Some welcome this because they think it can be managed for their own purposes. But once civil order breaks down, things simply accelerate with no possibility of talk being able to stop it anymore. It takes on a life of its own. Those who dream of th…
You should look up the definition of enfranchised. The insurrectionists will definitely be disenfranchised if convicted of felonies.
Of course, this isn't shutting down Parler, it's about removing an app from a store. Cry me a river that they'd have to log in using their phone browser or something. And let's be honest here: even a platform under 230 is not immune to consequences for facilitating a coup or an insurrection, I would have to believe, though I am not a lawyer.
230 has a "Good Samaritan" portion. In simplest terms, if the platform does its best to remove illegal content, it's good. Parler is definitely not doing that.
It's also not Apple's job to do any policing before Parler has been found guilty by a court.
Yes, that is what reddit, twitter and Hacker News reinforce constantly. It's either because it's true, or because the other side has been repeatedly discouraged from adding their two cents in those communities. I've been seeing the world through this lens for so long that I can't tell. I find it somewhat implausible that half the population is dumb, racist and all those other labels. It seems much more likely that I…
Why does the left have to censor the right? Surely they should be able to beat the right with logical and reasoned arguments? Censorship has always struck me as a tool that a side which isn't confident in its arguments uses.
Deplatforming isn’t censorship, it is publishers saying they find said speech to be garbage. I don’t typically stop arguing someone because I have convinced them of my view but because I guess further interaction with them on the topic is a waste of energy. I am confident in all my arguments but a lot of people are too dumb and too emotional to be worth debating. And in the group context, arguing without moderation has mostly devolved into name calling and child porn. It is an experiment often repeated. Some people want a different experience, which seems to mean they want moderation in exchange for a good forum, e.g. this web site.
Parler is incapable and unwilling to moderate nazis, white supremacists and terrorists. Worse, they thrive on those users. First they came for the nazis, and I didn't say anything because, well, fuck nazis. Then end.
If a society can't cope with people converting to Nazism because they read something on Facebook, I don't believe it's worthy of continuing.
You would think it’d be obvious to “hackers” that consolidation of power over information channels is the real coup. Sad no one seems alarmed by that or understands how that can go wrong.
Doesn't potentially cutting off millions of customers help with the course of decentralization though?
It doesn’t seem like the left values discourse. I don’t know if they care to respond to market incentive if that’s what you’re suggesting.
This has been apparent for some time and is a complete reversal from when conservatives were the conformist squares policing speech and society broadly.
Parler has been hosting TONS of incitements to violence and seems to refuse to take it down (or is at least extremely slow to). I don't see why it's particularly crazy that Apple would want to avoid the liability from that. FWIW, I think alternatives to Twitter, like Parler and Mastodon, are a good idea, but Parler acts like they have a fair takedown process when it's evident that it is not working particularly well.
Yah. It's like, before the_donald was banned: at least there was a grownup in the room reining it in some and it could be seen. But if you wholesale kick out the extremists, they make their own happy place where there's nothing to slow them down at all. (And then, in turn, you end up playing wack-a-mole with those cesspools, asking Apple/Google to deplatform them, etc.)
The flip side of that coin is that it also makes it harder to recruit people from broader platforms.
When the_donald left reddit, it became impossible for them to get their propaganda seen on the front page of reddit and seen by people who might join them. People won't casually stumble into a cesspool of lies and BS. Now they have to know it exists and actively seek it out.
I just googled "the donald" and they aren't even on the first page. Seems like deplatforming kind of worked....
Imagine owning a phone that can only get content approved by Apple and can cancel you for any arbitrary reason. Its like buying a radio that can only listen to democrats approved stations, its ridiculous and yet the fanboys will defend their shitty practices no matter what
You're trying to skate over the difference between good-faith political debate and bad-faith encouragement of violence and sedition. Diverse dissenting views are fine. Plotting armed violence to overturn a legitimate election result isn't. If the far-right can't operate without plotting armed violence - and there's plenty of evidence it can't - then it puts itself outside the reach of any free speech arguments. Not j…
Swap out a few nouns in the comment and you have a comment describing why the left shouldn’t be allowed to engage in public discourse either due to all of the support given to the BLM riots over the summer.
The fact that people seem to be honestly blind to how dangerous this line of reasoning is legitimately astonishes me.
Parler censors more than Twitter or FB. They give out bans like candy for anyone who is not right-wing nut politically. Parler is political platform.
Exactly. If they actually cared about censorship, they would promote Mastodon and host their own instance. But Parler is about maintaining the echo chamber, not free speech.
The biggest Mastodon federation instance is now Gab (far-right social media platform).
I get what you're saying but the other side of the coin is maybe the society at large is rejecting them. And they need to understand that they're not guaranteed an audience, If the society at large doesn't want to listen then they'll have to sloowly try to win some support. They seem to forget that many on the left fought tooth and nail historically for things we now consider for granted but society wasn't on board f…
If they were a fringe movement I'd be inclined to agree, but they're half the voter base. They can't possibly all be violent bigots.
The power of the internet means sure they can. Like that poor Macedonian women who was so upset to be maxed when she was trying be a revolutionary. Our brains are surprisingly susceptible to weak thinking from the internet.