Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

play.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 880 posts

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#411

Post by russianbandit »

ibejoeb wrote: post #375
dilap wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a better analogy is saying, oh, you've banned newspapers, but who cares, you can still talk to people in person. Which is to say, it's true, & that's a good thing, but that doesn't mean that the censorship itself isn't bad. The most effective, most powerful communication medium that exists right now is native apps for social networks on smartphones. If 100% of that medium is controlled and censored by two com…

> you can still talk to people in person That's practically illegal now, too. What a time to be alive...

Evil genius! Move to ban in person communication, control all the virtual communication mediums.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#413

Post by jackson1442 »

ecocentrik wrote: post #384
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wherein 100 people spilling over a barrier into a government building (and one of them getting shot to death) is somehow worse than the aforementioned billions in property damage and assaults on cops, smashed police cars, passersby attacked, stores looted, fires set... in 12 different cities around the nation?

Yes, context is important. The building is The Capital of a government and their aim was overthrowing that government by disrupting the democratic transfer of power. You can pretend that computers weren't stolen from congressional offices and that bombs weren't planted in the building, but playing dumb is a weak defense.

Not to mention the cybersecurity implications of what might have been left behind.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#415

Post by fassssst »

kortilla wrote: post #278
fassssst wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s simpler than that: intolerance can’t be tolerated.

You mean the intolerance of Apple and Google... or? That’s such a dumb meme because obviously tons of people disagree on what intolerance is.

No, the intolerance of the violent white suprematist seditionists.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#416

Post by rrose »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #336
jackson1442 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the BLM riots promote sedition? That's probably why. Also worth noting that there was no property damage or injuries in more than 97 to 98% of protests[1] [1]: https://today.uconn.edu/2020/10/study-2020-protests-shows-di...

Hahah, "sedition." A big made-for-TV LARP that lasted a matter of hours where almost nobody was armed and nothing was at stake -- hardly any desks were even overturned. There wasn't even a millisecond where it looked like Wednesday's events would affect how power is wielded or who wields it in the U.S.

nothing was at stake, except the police officer who was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher, also the lives of the people targeted by the pipe bombs.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#417

Post by marrone12 »

dumbfounder wrote: post #93
marrone12 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit seems to have just as much illegal content. All of this just seems like empty virtue signaling by tech companies way too late to actually change anything.

So you are saying that they should be trying to change the political landscape to prevent things that might happen in the future? Gross.

I'm saying that if it's about illegal content, why make these moves now when there's been illegal content on Parler before today, as well as illegal content that existed on other apps in the past.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#418

Post by ceph_ »

Thorentis wrote: post #328
QuixoticQuibit wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. We need to deplatform these fascist lunatics. They trust live in an alternate universe where killing politicians and cops is okay.

I seem to remember another group calling for the killing of politicians and cops recently. Huge protests, rioting, burning down police precincts. Some three letter acronym I can't remember...

Its amazing you can take the message of "cops shouldn't kill people" and spin it to be about killing the cops. It's a view of the world detached from reality.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#419

Post by yanderekko »

wnevets wrote: post #316
goldenkey wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a cursory glance on Twitter finds the same kind of unmoderated content but towards conservatives. Two wrongs don't make a right. But let's not act like these platforms are bastions of fair moderation. They are leftist corporatists, tried and true. https://twitter.com/CustomsFatman/status/1163877317208264705... https://twitter.com/kxxtcxcxxnx/status/1322190172872712192?s... https://twitter.com/AlmightyBoob/status…

Your first tweet is actually from a trump supporter, his timeline is filled with #stopthesteal and other non sense. Weird choice. https://twitter.com/CustomsFatman

It's not a weird choice, as it still shows that merely being able to find calls for violence is not sufficient for banning an app.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#420

Post by PurpleFoxy »

cabaalis wrote: post #333
rodgerd wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain exactly what that line of thinking is, and why you're troubled by this?

Primarily right-wing apps, websites, subreddits, communities. I'm afraid there will be attempts to cite some kind of complicity and ban them. I'm troubled by it because right-wing != violent, and 74 million people voted for the republican candidate. Continuing to disenfranchise their speech options will not go well.

It’s not platforms fault that certain communities are much more likely to violate basic rules.

If reddit creates a rule stating “do not threaten or advocate for violence” and in the process of enforcing that rule they find out that certain groups are disproportionately affected, should they continue equally apply the rule or should they start tallying things up to make sure they ban equal amounts of each group?

Post reply on HN