Parler CEO says he was fired by board

Post by the_only_law » Sat, Feb 06, 2021, 8:01 PM UTC

Griffinsauce wrote: post #510

skynet-9000 wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think HN strives to achieve this (as you point out, very high bar) and does a pretty good job with it overall. I do believe that dang's and the moderator teams' light touch has really aided a free-ranging discussion among people of wildly divergent viewpoints, and I for one appreciate this dynamic. That we're even having such a high-quality discussion now really speaks volumes to the seemingly effortless way in whi…

I think any mildly political topic disproves your point. Technological discussions mostly stay high quality but any politics(-adjacent) topic turns into an obvious struggle of moderation and quality. The same goes for Twitter but the balance of topics is heavily skewed towards the latter.

Post by kortilla » Sat, Feb 06, 2021, 9:31 PM UTC

deelowe wrote: post #419

pessimizer wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's odd that a hypothetical practice of AirBnB would be every single person's fault on the planet other than the people at AirBnB.

Are we still talking about factual comment of them requiring IDs or the completely unfounded speculation of them using it for all manner of things beyond regulatory compliance? The former is a fairly defensible position. PCI standards for this sort of data collection should be a government matter as they are the ones requiring this information to begin with. The latter isn't based on reality and not worth arguing abo…

Post by mancerayder » Sun, Feb 07, 2021, 12:03 AM UTC

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #500

mancerayder wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 by mancerayder » Sun, Feb 07, 2021, 8:07 PM UTC

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #516

mancerayder wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what "any and all" means, but it certainly protects you physically and that implies that you get protection from criminal violence and harassment, and certainly should. No? It's so vague, these one-liners, that we're talking past one another. Surely you don't think you should be able to doxx or punch someone in the face that has extremist views?

> Surely you don't think you should be able to doxx or punch someone in the face that has extremist views? How could you possibly believe this in good faith? Consequences can also be, for example, people expressing their distaste in your speech and choosing to boycott your products if you're a business. You said protection from consequences, not protection from criminal violence and harassment. If you meant protectio…

Post by mancerayder » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #518

mancerayder wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You honestly thought that people who raise their eyebrows at the phrase 'consequences to speech' advocate preventing boycotts or forcing people to continue buying products? How about the real world consequences people could potentially be referring to: harassment, doxxing, job losses and violence. I've met plenty of 'punch a Nazi in the face' people to know that many people believe that as a consequence.

Again, if you wanted to convey a specific meaning of consequences you probably should have just said that. There's a lot of consequences you're protected from, and even more that you're not protected from.