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

731–740 of 880 posts

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#731

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #476
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can the bans (being de-platformed) be more horrific than the actual violence that's occurred?

This is going to sound incredibly cold and callous, but the comparison needs to be made. One woman was shot. 4 others died for medical reasons. One was a heart attack. One was a police officer. Tragic deaths, to be sure. And the photos really do feel horrific. But do single digit casualties justify all this? Gang violence and crime kills way more people and police officers on a daily basis. Are we really setting the…

A handful of big corporations already controlled national discourse and communication prior to the events of January 6th. That hasn't materially changed before or after the insurrection.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#732

Post by scoopertrooper »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #697
scoopertrooper wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish this incorrect notion would die, The cops didn't just let them in. The protesters pushed past the main barricades. After the cordon had been broken, the police retreated back towards the Capitol building. The police repeatedly did this until they were completely overwhelmed by the protesters. One police officer died in the melee and several others sustained injuries. The failure on the day was one of leadershi…

There's video footage of the cops literally pulling back the barricades. See Millie Weaver on YT for example, and dozens of others.

Okay, I took your advice and found the relevant video on her Youtube channel; it pretty much confirmed what I said.

> Speaker 1: There were a couple of groups that busted through, but other than that, I mean it was almost like they let everybody else through, like once a group kind of busted through just trying [inaudible] mad

> Speaker 2: They were just trying to run away [inaudible]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=52&v=BUE4TCLlv-c

As they admit, the mob broke through part of the police lines, so the police retreated back to the Capitol building. Doing otherwise, would have allowed the remaining officers on the line to be encircled by the elements of the mob that had already broken through.

In any event, nobody is all that mad that the Trump supporters made their way to the steps of the Capitol building, the central issue is that they actually broke into the building and started marauding and threatening its occupants.

Your video does not allege that the Capitol Police let the protesters into the Capitol building. Rather, both your video and the ones I provided show they clearly did not. The mob made it in by climbing walls and scaffolding and smashing through windows and doors.

Your video tries to blames Antifa, but that is completely illogical. True, it shows several people within the crowd decrying the forced entry and blaming Antifa, but yet somehow scores of confirmed Trump supporters made it inside the Capitol building.

Did the Trump supporters just happen to be on a tour inside the building when Antifa broke down the doors? Did Antifa somehow force them to rampage through the place, beat police officers, steal, and vandalise property?

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#733

Post by SpaceRaccoon »

mhh__ wrote: post #495
SpaceRaccoon wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many prominent voices were guilty of spreading the conspiracy. Here's one analysis: https://news.ku.edu/2019/10/15/dangers-saying-russia-hacked-... "Those on the political left who play fast and loose with the term “hacked,” as in “Russia hacked the 2016 presidential election,” are aiding the Kremlin in its mission of undermining Americans’ faith in the democratic process, two University of Kansas researchers write i…

I can't read the article you've linked. > Neera Tanden So one person subject to an extremely obvious narrative-driven article by someone who clearly has an agenda on this issue? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald#Donald_Trump_a... Her tweets are stupid, but quite frankly her response to Greenwald he shows in his own article is a fair response.

> Her tweets are stupid

Amazing how lightly you brush off spreading a baseless conspiracy as long as it's your side doing it.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#734

Post by brigandish »

modriano wrote: post #639
brigandish wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you start conflating free speech with child pornography when that isn’t even relevant or necessary to the point at hand then it’ll be no wonder if you lack responses, and maybe you’ll consider that proof of a strong argument, who knows? Maybe that’s even the point of slinging that in there. I fail to see how that will lead to productive discussion though.

Neither I nor the person I replied to mentioned free speech. They asserted that Google or Apple removing an app will lead to Google or Apple "[taking] everything else from you". I pointed out a class of apps that are banned and asked why we haven't slipped down the slope they described.

> in uncensored, insufficiently moderated communities

> if so, why doesn't the prohibition of apps for child pornography

Forgive me, I was obviously mistaken to bring up freedom of speech or to claim that you were conflating apps/sites that allow freedom of speech with those that allow child pornography.

/s

Edit: fixed my egregious typos.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#735

Post by jude- »

SpaceRaccoon wrote: post #682
jude- wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

That's alright, I'm sure you would have said the same to civil rights advocates in the '60s, too.

Except, the civil rights advocates in the 1960's would have agreed with me. Denying business to racist institutions, starting with the Montgomery bus system, is how they got started.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#736

Post by bobcallme »

syndacks wrote: post #444
djsumdog wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purge has been happening for years. I hate how people on HN is praising this. There are literally few alternatives for the average person apart from Google and eyeProducts. I have a PinePhone, but what percentage of America can truly put in the effort to use one? If you cannot install an run your own software on a device, you do not own the device. You cannot praise the removal of Gab or Parlor now and complain l…

First, this is strawman bullshit. Don't bring up app prices in a culture war. What you're witnessing is culture expressing itself, rooted in history, the law, the zeitgeist of the people. And right now the culture is drawing a line in the sand and saying, "don't do that (bigotry, racism, ignorance)". You are free to be on this side of the line or you can start a revolution. So far the good guys are winning. Not Dems…

Fuck you and everyone here. The fact that anyone could defend this decision is ridiculous. I'm tired of people defending censorship in the most brain dead of ways when it has never worked in the past and it most certainly will not work now. Censoring unpopular ideas only allows them to fester in the dark where they can't be brought to light or addressed in the open. This was never about "racism","bigotry" or "ignorance". We are in this boat because of a much deeper set of problems that are currently going to lead to the further regression of society.

Those in power, people here and the arrogance of many others have created an entire generation of people who've been banished, shunned or shouted down any time they had a differing opinion on anything. I personally am done dealing with this bullshit and the problems that have been inflicted on society. I'm done being quiet and, personally, I'd rather join the damned than continue this circus. I'm willing to put everything on the table to end this and ensure that this will never happen again. EVERYONE deserves a voice and a platform; you are more than free to not listen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#737

Post by saithound »

danijelb wrote: post #560
nilkn wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship has a very simple definition, and it can be conducted by private companies. From Wikipedia: “Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.” “Real” censorship is just censorsh…

The reason I used the word "real" is probably because of my environment (ex-communist european country). I was born after the fall of communism, but of course the environment has a big influence on the lens through which you see things (family, friends, stories, history classes, etc.) So when I see what is called censorship in US, it seems a bit funny and strange to me. I immediately think how people in my country du…

Present-day social media censorship in the US is not "just free market", and is markedly similar to the kind I experienced growing up in a now-ex-communist eastern European country in the 1970s-1980s. Outright bans were not politically tenable by then, but forcing the opposition to express their views on fringe "alternative" channels was a popular strategy [1].

WeChat does not let you share Winnie the Pooh. Nominally, Tencent is a privately owned company freely choosing who they provide a platform to [2]. But in reality, they have no choice but to ban Winnie the Pooh, unless they want a state apparatus to make their lives increasingly difficult. Just because something is censored by a private platform doesn't mean that it's the "free market" of ideas and not a state or the government wielding its power.

Large US companies are also part of an industrial–congressional complex, with lobbying and political contributions on one side, political approval and threats of regulation on the other. Large tech companies are deeply and inseparably intertwined with the state and the political parties (both of them), based on the granting of reciprocated privileges. They know full well that if they ban the wrong speech (or refuse to ban the "right" speech), they face being regulated out of existence. Indeed, seeing this threat, we see them scramble to align with the incoming administration.

The kind of social engineering that led to the present bans was very popular in communist Eastern Europe as well. Did you recite an anti-government poem at your barbecue? You might find yourself banned from your favorite pub permanently! Why? Nominally, it was the bartender exercising his right not to serve you: after all, he shouldn't have to suffer potentially vocal ("verbally aggressive") imperialists in the establishment he runs. But behind the nominal reason was plain, state-mandated censorship. They'd have risked a bunch of misfortunes by not banning you. These could range from relevant, like the next few beer shipments "mysteriously" getting damaged during delivery, to completely random gaslighting-esque punishments, such as the bartender's daughter not getting admitted into the local high school. A plethora of plausibly deniable, no-outright-ban social mechanisms existed to make life difficult for people who disagreed with the official narrative, and to encourage people to ostracize the disagreeable. It required only a few well-placed entryists, made sure that ordinary citizens had skin in the game, and was a lot easier to handwave away than the black cars and heavy-handed approach that riled up the opposition in the previous years [3].

[1] https://meanwhileinbudapest.com/2020/09/11/klubradio-going-d... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-40627855 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_German_uprising_of_1953 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#738

Post by SpaceRaccoon »

FridgeSeal wrote: post #571
SpaceRaccoon wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or Parlour can just distribute as a web app. Okay. Then hosting providers refuse to host. Payment processors refuse to process your payments for web services. Your domains are revoked. Your SSL certs are revoked. Where does this end? If they have the power to, and they've justified it this far, why wouldn't they keep going?

Is this not “the market” deciding it doesn’t want to entertain this business? As a society it’s totally reasonable for us to draw the line at intolerable behaviour, we’re not obliged to put up with platforms that enable hate and vitriol, just as we don’t tolerate violence in the street. If a business closes because nobody is interested in buying their products, or a club disbands because nobody is interested in joini…

> just as we don’t tolerate violence in the street.

That's interesting: did you condemn the riots in the streets the past year?

I have a hunch that you defended them. Looking forward to being proven wrong.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#739

Post by setr »

wnevets wrote: post #717
throwawaylolx wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about these? https://i.ibb.co/5xMfsGL/twitter.png

Looks like very nasty, tasteless, crud and even hateful tweets but I'm not see any plans to storm the white house to the murder people.

If that’s all you’re looking for, then just check the responses section of the tweets you linked...

https://twitter.com/EthanKrue/status/1347374487117946888

(Re-)Storming the whitehouse on Jan 20, planning on twitter.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#740

Post by wnevets »

setr wrote: post #739
wnevets wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like very nasty, tasteless, crud and even hateful tweets but I'm not see any plans to storm the white house to the murder people.

If that’s all you’re looking for, then just check the responses section of the tweets you linked... https://twitter.com/EthanKrue/status/1347374487117946888 (Re-)Storming the whitehouse on Jan 20, planning on twitter.

Send me the links to the replies you think are bad.
Post reply on HN