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

Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

deadline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 259 posts

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#121

Post by jlos »

I think there are actually two issues here: the incidence of violence and use of a "Content Killswitch". By a content killswitch, I mean that concerted action by 3 companies to basicaly scrub the entire internet of source materia in 24-48 hours and leave only articles giving their spin on the events.

I remember the same thing happened when that stupid "Plandemic" movie came out earlier last year. Even while I had no sympathy at all for the point of view in the movie, I at least wanted to view it to make up my own mind and discuss its flaws with the family members who had recommended it to me. But it was almost impossible to find, and that was only within a day or so of it going viral.

While I have no sympathy for the viewpoint censored in both cases, the ability to kill content this broadly and quickly is an extremely powerful tool. All you have to do is imagine if your particular political boogeyman with their finger on that button.

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#122

Post by j8hn »

LatteLazy wrote: post #105
j8hn wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this true that it was largely organized on Parler? A Washington Post article said it was very visible on Twitter and Facebook.

(not the person you replied to) I think its almost the inverse: if there were 1m comments on Facebook/Twitter about it, they're among 1trn other comments on Facebook/twitter. If there 100k comments on parler, that's 10 times less. But there are only 100k (edit: 250k) comments on parler total and they're often about violently defending trumps "victory".

But the point is where was most of the planning for violence done?

I realize you're not being literal about all the comments centered around violence on Parler. Or maybe you are?

Are you saying most of the comments there are violent or a good number of them?

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#123

Post by pfisch »

LatteLazy wrote: post #46
pfisch wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean you can't run a site with no censorship where people are openly plotting the violent takeover of the us government and/or violent events. It is just a liability issue. This isn't some kind of censorship issue, that just isn't legal and never has been legal.

The great irony here is Parler DOES engage in loads of censorship (no parody, no Pro-Cannabis comments, no positive antifa comments, I don't think you can even be left wing on there). So I'm stuck defending a censorous site against censorship!? I am a weirdo, because a public site like Parler is exactly where I hope insurrection should be planned. Why wasn't the FBI ready to swoop and arrest actual violent people giv…

When they stopped filming people streaking on sports fields it stopped happening. When school shooters get tons of media coverage school shootings go up. Same with suicides.

People don't like to think that censorship works, but the truth is that censorship does work a lot of the time.

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#124

Post by grzm »

skynet-9000 wrote: post #74

When several vendors drop the same customer at the same time, and there are no state attorneys general bringing legal actions (and thus no grounds to assert illegal activity), then it seems like conspiracy to destroy a business, and a likely cause of action for tortious interference and possibly a RICO violation.

When the hills are on fire, it's not a conspiracy when everyone starts fighting fire to protect their homes. One of the pernicious aspects of conspiracy theories is that, when pressed for evidence or presented with evidence contrary to their beliefs, those arguing for the conspiracy fall back to another level of conspiracy.

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#125

Post by FFRefresh »

24gttghh wrote: post #3

Good. We should not tolerate the intolerant.

Is anybody who espouses this view willing to define how we determine who the intolerant are (to then not tolerate them)? Where is the line?

Should Fox News be taken off the air? Should any conservative talk radio show be shut down? Should all employees for any type of org that can considered conservative or adjacent be made to pay for tolerating the intolerant?

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#126

Post by skynet-9000 »

grzm wrote: post #124
skynet-9000 wrote: post #74

When several vendors drop the same customer at the same time, and there are no state attorneys general bringing legal actions (and thus no grounds to assert illegal activity), then it seems like conspiracy to destroy a business, and a likely cause of action for tortious interference and possibly a RICO violation.

When the hills are on fire, it's not a conspiracy when everyone starts fighting fire to protect their homes. One of the pernicious aspects of conspiracy theories is that, when pressed for evidence or presented with evidence contrary to their beliefs, those arguing for the conspiracy fall back to another level of conspiracy.

Conspiracy is a legal term and used here in a context unrelated to conspiracy theories, but to your point: what if all of the hills start on fire at the same time?

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#127

Post by _y5hn »

gameswithgo wrote: post #34
someelephant wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about we attempt to understand why people are thinking this way. Why are they not interested in thinking your way? What can be done to help both side talk and solve problems together?

we absolutely need to do all of that. but when i talk my parlerish side of the family it usually starts with them saying “if we hadn’t ended segregation we wouldn’t have these problems” and i don’t know what path to take from there

Sometimes people just need you to listen. Though it's ill adviced to agree with wild conspiracy theories, after a long discussion normal human beings tend to agree on something together, especially if not arguing.

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#128

Post by cygx »

j8hn wrote: post #82
throwaway189262 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehhh I've looked at parler out of curiosity. Basically full of hate, conspiracy, calls for violence, blatant racism "kill blacks" type stuff. I'm amazed companies were willing to work with them in the first place. Providing services to a company like that is like providing service to the KKK

Is this speech illegal?

The right to refuse service isn't limited to illegal activity.

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#129

Post by grzm »

skynet-9000 wrote: post #126
grzm wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the hills are on fire, it's not a conspiracy when everyone starts fighting fire to protect their homes. One of the pernicious aspects of conspiracy theories is that, when pressed for evidence or presented with evidence contrary to their beliefs, those arguing for the conspiracy fall back to another level of conspiracy.

Conspiracy is a legal term and used here in a context unrelated to conspiracy theories, but to your point: what if all of the hills start on fire at the same time?

They tend to do that. It's not hard to see the events of January 6 as a conflagration that caught a lot of attention and people looking for sources of water (to bend this analogy to well beyond usefulness).

Edit to add: if you're going to argue legal conspiracy, you're going to have to provide evidence that isn't circumstantial. Russell's Teapot, and all that.

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#130

Post by LatteLazy »

pfisch wrote: post #109
LatteLazy wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm all for arresting anyone who plans specific violence. Before/after the events at the capital, I don't care. Go arrest them. Banning one site just moves them to another and gives them a persecution complex. 12months in prison for conspiracy to commit public disorder is a much better deterant for future planned insurrections.

So we should be referring everyone making idle threats on the internet to law enforcement? That seems unrealistic and honestly way more totalitarian than just moderation and censorship. I also don't think law enforcement has the bandwidth to deal with it.

If someone makes a specific threat, yes.

Then when they get 50 referrals from r/knitting and 50mil from parlar, law enforcement can raise an eyebrow, investigate and prevent these things.

To me, that seems fair and effective.

The alternative is that we ban parlar. But only after the violence. And we know that banning parlar won't prevent this from happening, we're just moving the problem.

Why bother? Keep parler, by now every second account should an FBI agent. It's even better than twitter/reddit/facebook: all the noise is gone, it's just the crazies planning violence...

Post reply on HN