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

211–220 of 259 posts

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

#211

Post by DenisM »

j8hn wrote: post #122
LatteLazy wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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?

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

There are two questions here - impact and optics. You are asking the former, but it’s likely the latter that caused trouble.

A smaller platform with larger percentage of offensive messages will look worse than a larger platform with a small percentage even if the total impact of the large platform is 100 time more.

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

#212

Post by j8hn »

trianglem wrote: post #204
j8hn wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Common sense and arbitrary decisions. If you’re making this point you’re a bad faith actor.

Can you explain how I'm a bad faith actor.

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

#213

Post by j8hn »

mcphage wrote: post #189
j8hn wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a strange framework to decide who the fascists are.

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

#214

Post by DenisM »

dredmorbius wrote: post #146

Speculation: A coordinated action including of legal services strongly suggests to me that the vendors themselves have pressure applied, most likely being an ongoing federal law enforcement/security operation. The smell of this goes beyond the business community suddenly deciding Parler is an utterly dispicable organisation. This also raises the question of what heat is now being applied to Parler's backers, notably…

Why would law enforcement care at this point? That’s a lot of trouble to go through, and likely illegal for them.

But the precise timing is suspicious. I dunno.

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

#215

Post by DenisM »

simonh wrote: post #69
influx wrote: post #26

How far should this go? Should banks refuse to service employees? Grocery stores? Gas stations? They are private businesses, they have no reason to tolerate people who are thinking the wrong way.

In general I think we all should be free to associate or do business with whoever we choose. That should be the default position. There may have to be some exceptions where available options are limited for crucial services. I’m trying to avoid using the word Monopoly because it’s bandied about so much inappropriately, but some services are so essential and providers are so limited that we should probably expect them…

Legal counsel is not essential?

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

#216

Post by DenisM »

gameswithgo wrote: post #28
LatteLazy wrote: post #12

And yet they are still online (edit: looks like they'll be online with AWS until 1159 PCT, my mistake) I am pretty sure that coordinated withdrawal of services like this would amount to Tortious Interference wouldn't it? Given Parler/Foxx's pentant for exaggeration and playing the victim I'm a little incredulous to be honest. I don't like censorship or support it. Parler should stay, for all its issues. But that does…

is it coordinated or is everyone just sick of them? their lawyers left too, they are not part of some silicon valley cabal

Lawyers routinely represent the worst of our society. That includes literal baby killers, tobacco companies, companies that have catastrophic environmental impact or even mass poisoning.

The idea that lawyers spontaneously decided to quit representing a media business because they finally got sick on that particular day is hard to believe.

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

#217

Post by mcphage »

j8hn wrote: post #213
mcphage wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's a strange framework to decide who the fascists are.

That’s what’s great about it—you don’t need a framework at all. You can look at your surroundings and decide what is most appropriate right now.

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

#218

Post by dredmorbius »

DenisM wrote: post #214
dredmorbius wrote: post #146

Speculation: A coordinated action including of legal services strongly suggests to me that the vendors themselves have pressure applied, most likely being an ongoing federal law enforcement/security operation. The smell of this goes beyond the business community suddenly deciding Parler is an utterly dispicable organisation. This also raises the question of what heat is now being applied to Parler's backers, notably…

Why would law enforcement care at this point? That’s a lot of trouble to go through, and likely illegal for them. But the precise timing is suspicious. I dunno.

National security has an abundant interest.

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

#219

Post by j8hn »

mcphage wrote: post #217
j8hn wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a strange framework to decide who the fascists are.

That’s what’s great about it—you don’t need a framework at all. You can look at your surroundings and decide what is most appropriate right now .

So when Veronica Beach talks about Antifa terrorizing parts of Seattle, are they fascists?

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

#220

Post by salawat »

brayhite wrote: post #115
manfredo wrote: post #96

The way this forum was purged from the internet is making me uncomfortable. I never used Parler, and I really don't care about the fact that it's gone. But the way that a handful of private companies effectively decides who gets to reach an audience and who doesn't is deeply troubling. We're increasingly becoming a world where what is and isn't allowed in the public sphere is controlled by a handful of corporate lead…

I don’t think the goal of banning these folks is to change the banned person’s mind. It’s to slow down the spread of the banned person’s rhetoric. To your suggestion that folks who witness the ban take place suspecting “there’s something afoot”, while that could be right, I’d bet that’s a much smaller number than the number of folks who would’ve otherwise seen the rhetoric and came around to agreeing with it, if not…

I can honestly say that with what little time I have, and limited access to info, I can't really convincingly dispel the feeling that there was fraud from people. I've seen State responses, I've talked to people. I follow up on both sides takes on things. These last few days though have started to convince me that there is a huge problem, way bigger even than election fraud, and it's the sheer rapidity that agenda's can get rolled out by platforms, or handily shutdown. People recognize that. It encourages them to then spread info the old fashion way, and well...

You might have a pandemic going on which helps isolating people from each other, but the lines are still open. I think GP is definitely right. This is half tge reason why I felt the only thing to do that would make sense was a full public accounting of every facet of every suspected voting process. Audits, machines, software, configurations, datasets, all of it.

There is no way you hold it tight to your chest and come out of it with everyone unified to move forward, and no offence, but I don't trust anyone on Earth with the technology for successful mass management of unruly populations. A pity that quality doesn't appear more universal as evidenced by current events.

Post reply on HN