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

181–190 of 259 posts

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

#181

Post by Reedx »

throwaway189262 wrote: post #59
Reedx wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Said the church to the scientist. Said the mob to the witch. Be careful about where this goes. This one doesn't affect you and I, but the next one might. It certainly will when it gets to HN or Signal. But then it'll be too late. First they came for...

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

That's pretty close to how Twitter is often described.

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

#182

Post by dredmorbius »

danhak wrote: post #87
mcherm wrote: post #80

I am very concerned about the ease and speed with which they have been deplatformed. I am not a big fan of Parler, but I am a very big fan of free speech, and if the various actors who have driven them out of business can act this quickly in this well-coordinated, what else could they decide to censor?

The issue is that these platforms have grown to monopolistic or duopolistic size, NOT that a private company has the right to sever a business relationship. It’s an antitrust issue, not a free speech issue.

¿Por que no los dos?

But wait, there's more!

- Monopoly / antitrust

- Free speech

- Sedition / insurrection

- Property rights (of vendors)

- Freedom of association (vendors)

- National security

- Incitement, accountability

Interests and values require balancing. Some may weight more heavily than others.

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

#183

Post by cygx »

LatteLazy wrote: post #176
cygx wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that the alternative would be forcing private companies to do business with a party they do not want to do business with. That has its own set of issues.

You're right and it does. But we do already do that with (other) utilities: the power company can't cut off the supply to the local KKK office as long as they're operating legally and they pay their bills. This is the price we pay for an open society. Freedom means freedom for morons as well as for us. I wish there were an easier answer, but I wouldn't even trust myself with the power to decide who is allowed to spea…

So are you arguing for declaring cloud computing platforms public utilities?

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

#184

Post by username90 »

_y5hn wrote: post #161
j8hn wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just pointing out that these very powerful companies, some are claimed to be monopolies are acting in unison which can be argued seems like cartel behavior.

There's a big reason they act in unison now though. They're responding to a single national security threat event and possible consequencial liabilities. So it is not a random time do be doing this. There has previously been legitimate concern about extremism, and from this event seems only to accellerate until mitigated. People should enjoy free speech, but how these platforms work, the side-effects of algos and wha…

That is a good reason why we need to support such businesses not in the US. There is no way a European based company would ban them on such a short notice over some minor thing happening in the US. It isn't like US based companies ban much in Europe, it is just local politics driving these decisions.

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

#185

Post by j8hn »

LatteLazy wrote: post #149
j8hn wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sorry, I should have picked better numbers. I'm just saying many of the comments, I won't pretend I know "most" let alone all. It's too late to stop the violence that's already happened. That's cheap and I don't like it but it's true sadly. There are real questions to be asked why the FBI weren't all over this from day 1. They need to be asked because it's (literally) their job to prevent this. Im just suggesting rea…

You raise a good question about why this wasn't stopped before it happened.

Apparently at least one prominent group made public weeks ago that violence was planned at the Capitol. Specific violence to place members of congress under "citizens arrest". I expect to see congressional hearings about this. It's really hard to fathom they were unprepared if the planning was done right out in the open.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/capitol-siege-was-...

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

#186

Post by artificialLimbs »

LatteLazy wrote: post #139
pfisch wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can see some argument for that. But It still makes no sense to ban parler. And you now need to filter the content of all media to prevent those people getting publicity elsewhere. So is that the plan? Keep parler but install censors there AND in every website mod office, newspaper, TV station and radio studio? That's a lot of work. When we could just put FBI agents on parler and have them prevent crimes with conspi…

You could hold individuals responsible for crimes when they are reported or found.

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

#187

Post by 24gttghh »

FFRefresh wrote: post #125
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?

https://medium.com/thoughts-economics-politics-sustainabilit...

https://images.app.goo.gl/nCWYshqYeZcN94kf7

Tolerating the intolerant gives the intolerant the foothold they need to get enough legitimacy to seize power and destroy the society which was tolerant of them.

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

#188

Post by 24gttghh »

flukus wrote: post #180
Traster wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should go to one of these forums - parler or gab, currently /r/conspiracy, or one of the similar. Try to have a reasoned conversation with them. I really genuinely want more people to do that. Because when you do that you very quickly start to understand there is no reason. On the 5th of January, you would've heard them loudly preach that the 6th will be the "reckoning" the "true patriots" would "rise up"…

> I think you should go to one of these forums - parler or gab, currently /r/conspiracy, or one of the similar. Try to have a reasoned conversation with them You'll be banned pretty quickly, they really don't care about free speech, only their speech.

Indeed, and time should not be wasted on those who argue in bad faith.

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

#189

Post by mcphage »

j8hn wrote: post #140
trianglem wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes fascists should be refused by everyone. It’s in everyone’s interests to have more customers so this works itself out through game theory.

Who decides who are the fascists? A community activist in Seattle is organizing against Antifa calling them terrorists for causing violence and hijacking social justice issues such as Black Lives Matter and the homeless issue. Should that group also be refused by everyone, or does it depend on political ideology? Source: https://twitter.com/choeshow/status/1345184414016278528 https://twitter.com/choeshow/status/13451…

> Who decides who are the fascists?

Well, let’s start with: the ones who took over the US Capitol building. And then later we can look at the results, decide if that was enough or not, and act accordingly.

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

#190

Post by igetspam »

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #175
igetspam wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's the goal. I think the goal for those companies is to not lose business over this. This is the free market at its best. Market pressure has made the math pretty simple: if N customers won't do business with my company because we do business with Abhorrent Co and the potential revenue loss from losing those N companies is greater than the revenue I generate from Abhorrent Co, then drop Abhorrent Co…

Not everyone right of Biden is a nazi.

And not everyone "right of Biden" is being deplatformed, unless you think everyone right of center is on Parler. Parler is a cesspool of hate groups and conspiracy theories, many of them Nazi or Nazi adjacent.
Post reply on HN