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

Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 984 posts

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#151

Post by trident5000 »

pstuart wrote: post #136
trident5000 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean like when Kathy Griffin was holding up the presidents bloody head with no recourse? Or the summer riots which were heavily coordinated on Twitter? Twitter is still in the app stores. Extremism is on Twitter, Facebook, and all platforms, yet they came together like a mob and eliminated the one they didnt like.

It was a stupid gesture on her part and she paid a step price for that act, so it wasn't so free. When talking about the riots that happened it important to acknowledge all the players. Most of the protesters against police brutality were peaceful and exercising first amendment rights of the first degree -- complaining about government abuses. There are recorded cases of agents provocateur, e.g., https://www.startrib…

No platform recourse and they didnt even ban the material, even today. You could say the capital protestors were “mostly peaceful” as well as the vast majority did not storm the building. Even those on the capital steps were a tiny minority of who showed up. Im really not here to argue case by case and combat mental gymnastics for why one sides extremism is ok but the others is not. Im simply pointing out that all platforms have extremism and calls for violence but only one was banned swiftly.

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#152

Post by dlp211 »

goatinaboat wrote: post #117
the_drunkard wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Parler was created because Twitter and Facebook were moderating content. > If Twitter and Facebook hadn't been moderating hate speech, Parler would not exist. I don't think it's fair to claim Parler was created because Twitter and Facebook moderate hate speech. For example, the Hunter Biden story was actively suppressed on both Twitter and Facebook, essentially confirming long-held beliefs that social media platfor…

For example, the Hunter Biden story was actively suppressed on both Twitter and Facebook, essentially confirming long-held beliefs that social media platforms curate based on political ideology. I don’t think anyone can in good faith deny that if Don Trump Jr had allegedly done one-tenth of what Hunter Biden is accused of, the media would have it on 24/7 rotation.

Yes, because doing something and being accused of something don't meet the same bar of evidence.

Meanwhile, the Trump and children have been a Masterclass of nepotism and corruption. Let me know when one of Biden's children become an Aide to the President or put in charge of pandemic response, middle east peace, federal government reform, or the dozen other things Javanka was put in charge of despite being absolutely ignorant and unqualified in those topics.

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#153

Post by imglorp »

We're also at the point now where you have to ask which cloud is deplatforming a site. (edit, and their state alignment)

Case in point, Russia is now routing Parler traffic.

https://twitter.com/VickerySec/status/1351227537985318929?s=...

https://twitter.com/dtemkin/status/1351240721261584385?s=20 (edit)

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#155

Post by edbob »

alwayseasy wrote: post #113
edbob wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the worst-case scenario if they had succeeded? That they take some people hostage and have a stand-off until the FBI takes them down? There was no path to them attaining any actual power. Their actions were violent and bad, but had no actual effect on anybody outside of D.C. That is not what I call an "existential threat". Again, you have to compare the downsides of free speech vs the downsides of censorship.…

The worst-case scenario is the end of democracy in the USA in the next 15 years. If one side stays convinced the elections were fraudulent and Trump is a victim , it will cause a permanent shift in how Americans see their own democratic elections. Historically, since democracy has existed, that vacuum is always filled by an authoritarian leader.

Nothing will pour more gas on that fire than censorship.

I basically agree with your analysis on that point, and I'm resentful of Trump for helping to create that problem. But I consider big tech censorship to be the first step to an inevitable end of democracy, "destroying it in order to save it".

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#156

Post by bluescrn »

lisper wrote: post #11

I gotta say, recent events have left me shaken to my core. I thought I believed in free speech, to the point where I started a company dedicated to providing privacy and communications products that were not subject to control by any central authority (that turns out to be very hard!) But watching the events of the past few years unfold I am no longer convinced that this would really make the world a better place. I…

Is the speech really the problem, or the echo chambers within which it is spoken?

The marketplace of ideas can't really function if people are only ever presented with a carefully tailored safe/comfortable subset of ideas.

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#157

Post by danudey »

MikeUt wrote: post #82
inerte wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh my god! You got me, bro! You’re so smart.

Let me be more direct - how do you think these powers of restriction on "influencing people" you want, will be used by an administration you don't want? Do you think there might be some foreign countries where such powers are already in place, that could give us a clue how things might turn out, or is America too much of a unique exception to be able to learn from anyone else's experience?

I would think that context is also important.

Tweeting "burn the whole thing down" to a generally liberal crowd is a figure of speech which implies, by and large, the need for complete reform.

To far-right "conservatives", white supremacists, violent insurrectionists, and paranoid militias, it implies something completely different.

In other words, someone tweeting "burn the whole thing down" to a liberal following in regards to a judicial appointment is a very different thing from Trump or other far-right "influencers" tweeting "burn the whole thing down" to a large and frequently violent crowd in regards to their false claims of stolen elections, because it's reasonable to assume that people upset about the replacement of RBG aren't going to literally burn down the capitol, whereas it's clear that a (small but sufficiently significant) subset of Trump followers were not only willing to, but able to and intent on, burning down the Capitol in response to the false stolen election claims.

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#158

Post by lixtra »

evantahler wrote: post #123

I would like to see a new class of “social libel” laws - whereby knowing telling lies as truth in a public forum were punishable. Is this a civil or criminal offense?

Which politician would pass such a law? Only the one that has very tight control over the judges that execute it.

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#159

Post by trident5000 »

travisporter wrote: post #147
trident5000 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean like when Kathy Griffin was holding up the presidents bloody head with no recourse? Or the summer riots which were heavily coordinated on Twitter? Twitter is still in the app stores. Extremism is on Twitter, Facebook, and all platforms, yet they came together like a mob and eliminated the one they didnt like.

Yes, I agree. Iran's supreme leader is still on twitter. But a counterpoint is that that ISIS was driven out of twitter and FB systematically. Correct me but you're implying in your statement is they "eliminated the one they didn't like [because of political views]" but that's not necessarily the only reason EDIT: Given your other responses, we're at an impasse. Bowing out.

I forgot the other reason: to give a gift to the new party in power in hopes of stopping the anti-trust cases. The dems were nudging some of them, ill be interested to see if we get a magical 180 degree turn.

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#160

Post by slg »

voodootrucker wrote: post #41
lisper wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that is exactly the problem: how do you separate the two? Once someone figures out a way to profit from "free speech" the profit motive takes over and infects the whole system. I don't see any way around that without compromising freedom.

I think banning online advertising causing these sites to charge their users for the service would right a lot of wrongs automatically, when the free market can start to kick in and do it's job. It makes it so Facebook's product becomes online photo sharing, instead of it's current product which is manipulation and addiction. https://www.wired.com/story/why-dont-we-just-ban-targeted-ad...

>I think banning online advertising

So you want to limit speech in the name of protecting free speech?

Post reply on HN