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

Parler CEO says he was fired by board

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 520 posts

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#491

Post by burnte »

kyran_adept wrote: post #100
burnte wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. Freedom of speech never came with a freedom from consequences, nor a guarantee to a broadcast platform. You're still free to stand on the corner with a "God hates fags" sign or a "kill democrats" sign.

I am genuinely curious if do you see someone with a sign saying "Kill X" and someone just talking on the internet about undemocratic power change differently? If you see them differently, then why? The acts they are talking about are both crimes. My assumption is that: 1. Not everyone on Parler committed crimes in the physical world - eg. storm the Capitol, so that means that talking about something is not enough to…

I actually looked at the content on Parler and TheDonald. It wasn't just "kill X" or other bland content. There were detailed plans, detailed descriptions of exactly what hundreds of people were planning, lots of conversations where people were coordinating with each other, etc. Look at the photos of people who broke into the Capitol. Flex cuffs aren't normal peaceful protest equipment. Neither is body armor, armored helmets, concealed weapons, large canisters of pepper spray and tear gas (which they used against police).

Did everyone on Parler do what they said? No. Did some? Yes, we have captures of their posts and video of them doing it. When people with bad intentions never encounter any push back, they're emboldened and escalate their speech and actions. Parler has been warned for years that allowing this type of content to run rampant will encourage more, and encourage even more extreme statements, which eventually lead to actions. Eventually it happened. And then other independent, private organizations had every right to decide not to do business with them, and proceeded to terminate their relationships with Parler as is their right.

If all the people who peacefully used Parler are upset, they should blame Parler's poor management, as Parler's board clearly did.

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#492

Post by burnte »

visarga wrote: post #227
kyran_adept wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am genuinely curious if do you see someone with a sign saying "Kill X" and someone just talking on the internet about undemocratic power change differently? If you see them differently, then why? The acts they are talking about are both crimes. My assumption is that: 1. Not everyone on Parler committed crimes in the physical world - eg. storm the Capitol, so that means that talking about something is not enough to…

Even tolerance advocates can't support intolerance. We need diversity, but not the kind that destroys the system.

The paradox of tolerance. Eventually the tolerant will be overrun by the intolerant, so the tolerant need to have safeguard that protect the sciety.

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#493

Post by burnte »

dkdk8283 wrote: post #118
burnte wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. Freedom of speech never came with a freedom from consequences, nor a guarantee to a broadcast platform. You're still free to stand on the corner with a "God hates fags" sign or a "kill democrats" sign.

Even my extremely liberal anti-bias training tells me diverse points of view are healthy. What ever happened to sticks and stones bla bla? The power of twitter is unprecedented. Laws are out of date and it seems folks are hiding behind this fact to justify their own biased beliefs. Silencing opinion creates extremists.

It's called the paradox of tolerance. If we tolerate ALL views without limit, eventually the intolerant will take advantage of this, and overrun the tolerant. Tolerance is like free speech, there are healthy limits that must be in place to safeguard participants. What happened at Parler was not simply political speech, it was clear and detailed planning of violence.

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#494

Post by mikedilger »

reissbaker wrote: post #344
mikedilger wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm interested in knowing how you think a real "free speech" platform can actually work, however. Let me give this a shot. There are two types of content that need to be removed: (1) spammy content that readers themselves don't want to see, and (2) illegal content that society doesn't want anybody to see. I think these two need to be addressed separately. Illegal content includes copyright infringement, violations…

I assume you're getting downvoted at least in part because people disagree with you (I didn't downvote FWIW), but you're also factually wrong about Section 230 protections. Section 230 doesn't give blanket immunity to publishing illegal content: it only protects against civil violations, not criminal.

> Section 230 doesn't give blanket immunity to publishing illegal content: it only protects against civil violations, not criminal.

Of course you are correct, but that doesn't make me factually wrong. You are talking about publishing illegal content. But (c)(1) "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

And I missed DMCA takedowns.

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#495

Post by johnisgood »

Spivak wrote: post #437
jaywalk wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't change the fact that they still also belong to someone else who may very well want to keep them.

Or another way of saying this is that the optimization of only storing one copy of each message doesn't change user-visible semantics of each user having their own copy of their messages. But I thought Discord, somewhat controversially, did actually let one person delete messages from all parties. Maybe they eventually caved because it enabled abuses/harassers to deprive their victims of evidence.

You can still delete your messages on Discord, be it in a DM (direct message), or in a channel. You can even edit them, and there is no edit history.

Although administrators can take away your right to even see the existence of a channel, which means that you no longer can delete your messages in that channel, since you have to see the messages to be able to delete them. For the record: if you have the permissions, you can delete anyone's messages in a channel.

Similar issues can arise in direct messages, for example if you closed the DM, and say, you left all mutual servers, and you unfriended your friend (without blocking), and the person changed his or her name so you are no longer able to add him or her back. When you add someone, that person will appear in "Pending" friends after having added, so you can click on "Message" to open the DM. Without that, you cannot open the DM, which again means that you cannot see the messages, thus you cannot delete them. I put "without blocking" in parentheses, because if you block someone, they will appear in "Blocked" friends, and it keeps track of changes in their name or even ID (that they are able to change with Discord Nitro), and you can open a DM easily from there. To open up the DM, you right click on the name, then click on "Message" which you can only do if 1) the person is in the same server you are, 2) the person is your friend, 3) the person is in "Pending" friends, or 4) if the person is in "Blocked" friends.

Alternatively, if you lose access to your account through losing your password, getting your account disabled, or removed by you or Discord. In this case, too, you lose the ability to delete your messages.

To bulk delete your messages, you can use https://github.com/victornpb/deleteDiscordMessages. If you have sent 100k messages, then it could take hours for your messages to get deleted due to rate-limiting. This script does nothing more than what you can already do manually; delete the messages you can see.

---

TL;DR: You can delete (and edit) your own messages on Discord as long as you can see them (have access to them), and you can delete other people's messages from channels if you have the right permissions.

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#496

Post by judge2020 »

ashtonkem wrote: post #453
jjav wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a valid thought experiment to consider. I'm old enough that racking my own boxes and hosting everything myself is both natural and easy (and cheaper and faster). But working with plenty of young developers, most don't have any exposure or interest in setting up anything other than AWS services tied together. So like it or not (I don't) we're rushing towards a world where AWS (maaybe GCP, mostly not) is the on…

That’s not true though. By volume, GoDaddy is actually a bigger host than AWS by a factor of 2. The HN crowd vastly overestimates how big AWS is compared to less sexy options.

The difference is that AWS hosts big clients and makes big bucks in return. Godaddy's hosting had 300m in revenue[0], while AWS did nearly 13 billion[1].

0: https://www.zdnet.com/article/godaddy-q3-revenue-beats-expec....

1: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/02/aws-earnings-q4-2020.html#Bo....

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#497

Post by watwut »

skynet-9000 wrote: post #480
watwut wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regardless, this is besides the point: all a competitor has to do is post some garbage and point to it, and boom, you're dead. That's not ok. That is not what happened however. That is quite manipulative framing spread by Parler. What happened was that Amazon itself identified those few dozen posts and asked Parler to remove them. Parler did not done that and claimed it is difficult for them. Amazon is not Parlers…

This may be true. It wouldn't surprise me if Parler said "no" when asked to take them down, but I didn't see that even in Amazon's court filing. However, I don't think Amazon should interfere in customers' businesses and harm the relationship between customers and third parties (the users). What if Amazon had said, "Netflix, we find the Cuties movie offensive. We have shut you off and will delete all of your data wit…

> didn't see that even in Amazon's court filing.

That is exactly what is in Amazons court response. You either did not read it or are lying.

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#499

Post by CathedralBorrow »

skynet-9000 wrote: post #479
throwaway19937 wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing there seemed to be much worse than I've seen on Twitter (actually, Twitter stuff was far worse). https://i.redd.it/om90nwadqca61.png is a Parler post with a racial slur and 25k upvotes. Twitter has its issues but an equivalent comment isn't going to survive two days. The court documents from their case against Amazon are available at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/parler-llc-v-a... . Amazon's…

Yeah, that's a disgusting comment and it's far worse that it received upvotes if that screenshot is accurate. Nevertheless, it is legal free speech, even if it makes me very angry.

Legal free speech does not mean that a private company is obligated to host it.

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#500

Post by CathedralBorrow »

mancerayder wrote: post #405
seventytwo wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but you don’t just get to incubate insurrection without facing societal consequences. You have free speech, but zero freedom from consequence.

>You have free speech, but zero freedom from consequence. That's about the most Orwellian meme that is making the rounds and needs to be examined critically. Freedom to do a thing implies protection from consequence, or you're not free. Also there were articles on HN about how the Capitol riots were organized on Facebook.

> Freedom to do a thing implies protection from consequence, or you're not free.

This is a wild take on freedom. Do you seriously believe that free speech means that you should be able to say anything and be protected from any and all consequences?

Post reply on HN