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

Frustrated with Parler deplatforming, I am building a service no one can silence

1b677b8f8bb20100.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 218 posts

Re: Frustrated with Parler deplatforming, I am building a service no one can silence

#191

Post by leereeves »

mcguire wrote: post #120
tone wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how anyone holds this opinion. Do you really believe that this will result in fair, unbiased reporting? Who is the long-term great arbiter not only of the news but removal of non-news? I'm also not sure why your worldview seems to be that given access to all opinions, the stupidest ones too, people will not and cannot learn to make informed judgements for themselves. You will see some stupidity but it's…

Arguments in bad faith drive out those in good faith. " Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for,…

Automated or crowdsourced moderation don't counter that; they reinforce it.

Look at Twitter and reddit, two sites where it's impossible to have a serious discussion because those who hold platform-approved opinions "like to play with discourse" and "seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert."

"They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly" for fear of the moderators.

Skilled, professional, human moderation might counter that, but doesn't scale.

Re: Frustrated with Parler deplatforming, I am building a service no one can silence

#192

Post by RhysU »

wrycoder wrote: post #175
effie wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, this argument and its result is not a good guide, because it is vague of what is "intolerant" and easily gets interpreted as fighting fascism with fascism. In order to win, we must become the enemy, because we are better. No thanks.

Popper is clear. He’s not willing to extend tolerance to completely intolerant people.

Suppressing intolerant individuals makes one intolerant. The concept is symmetric whenever cancelation occurs.

Re: Frustrated with Parler deplatforming, I am building a service no one can silence

#193

Post by FreshFries »

drusepth wrote: post #108
3np wrote: post #60

dang: this seems incorrectly flagged.

Looks like all of OP's comments have also been flagged, ironically.

Maybe since OP's account has exactly done 1 thing: post this link and defends / explains what the "developer of the tool" does, thinks and means, but in the third person.

Re: Frustrated with Parler deplatforming, I am building a service no one can silence

#194

Post by jojobas »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #177
jojobas wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Voltaire's time all one could do is speak at the market square. Today that's roughly equivalent to speaking in a dark room with nobody else inside, I doubt that' what Voltaire was willing to die for.

Right, he was talking about speaking without fearing punishment by the government. The modern equivalent of which is… speaking without fearing punishment by the government.

Being punished by a corporation or a mob is no relief.

Re: Frustrated with Parler deplatforming, I am building a service no one can silence

#195

Post by hexadec »

aldonius wrote: post #184
hexadec wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This begs the question, which is the default: light or full. You cannot claim to support freedom of speech and have this capacity in my opinion. It is implicitly saying some voices are less valid. It is an interesting project technically, but I do not think it will replace the *chan model for edgy people to be edgy on the internet. If your opinions are so extreme that you feel that you must be anonymous and free from…

So you're claiming that freedom of speech creates an obligation to listen?

No, freedom of speech is about the government censoring your ability of speech. You are free to stand on a street corner and yell to the world but it does not require anyone to listen to you.

This person is advocating for a non-governmental website that is for enabling free speech since they see some voices as being silenced. But with that comes the ability for people you disagree with the speak as well. No government censored Parler, it was people who disagreed. What if this new service is overrun with people who disagree, will it be swept away in shadow posts or will people who say disagreeable things actually see that.

Re: Frustrated with Parler deplatforming, I am building a service no one can silence

#196

Post by danaris »

falcolas wrote: post #163
cmeacham98 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about libel/slander? What about child pornography? What about doxxing? Surely you agree we have to draw the line _somewhere_, even if you disagree with where we currently draw it?

> What about child pornography? It's amusing how frequently this comes up. If someone distributes child pornography, arrest them using the existing laws of the land. "But what if it spreads from there?" I hear someone saying. Well, they're still posting illegal content, so arrest them too. It's silly to assume that the freedom of speech implies some kind of inherent free pass from consequences of your speech.

I think what you're missing in this is that the only reason that stands is because images of child pornography, which would otherwise be considered protected speech just like any other image, have been declared to be illegal.

It's not that "there are laws against child pornography, which are completely separate from the debate about free speech."

Laws against the production of (actual) child pornography are irrelevant to the debate about free speech.

Laws against its distribution are absolutely relevant, because "distribution of child pornography" is just a kind of speech.

(To be clear, I oppose free-speech maximalism in general, and have no trouble with the idea of laws criminalizing the distribution of child pornography.)

Re: Frustrated with Parler deplatforming, I am building a service no one can silence

#197

Post by danaris »

gchamonlive wrote: post #4

In a tolerant society, should we tolerate intolerance? I am genuinely interested to hear your thoughts.

If you want to maintain a tolerant society, you cannot tolerate intolerance.

Stripping away all real-world specifics, take this as a thought experiment:

You have a community (of whatever size) that starts out containing (among others) groups A and B. Group B is defined by their desire to remove group A from the community, and their outspoken proclamation of such and attempts to persuade others to their point of view.

If the community remains "tolerant" of all, that will, over time, almost inevitably result in the size of group A within the community shrinking, due to group B's efforts being both successful and tolerated, and due to group A not wishing to remain in a place where their very right to existence is constantly questioned.

In effect, what this means is that a community that claims to tolerate both groups is actually intolerant of group A. Tolerating any group-directed intolerance is, in effect, espousing it.

Thus, in order to be tolerant to the greatest number, any community must not tolerate intolerance.

It is also well worth noting that the types of intolerance we are generally discussing whether or not to tolerate are intolerances of intrinsic characteristics, while being intolerant of them is intolerance of a behavior.

People can change their behavior. They cannot change their intrinsic characteristics. Thus, in the thought experiment above, if the community refuses to tolerate Group B's intolerance, no member of group B needs to leave. They only need to stop expressing their intolerance.

Re: Frustrated with Parler deplatforming, I am building a service no one can silence

#198

Post by imbnwa »

ThomW wrote: post #9

Parler is a shit hole, and at this point I’m not sure we need another social network anything. The major ones do a lousy job of policing fake news and misinformation, and from your tone it sounds like you support that garbage. I’m pretty sure giving every moron on earth a globally-accessible soapbox is about the stupidest idea humankind has ever had.

- James Madison

Re: Frustrated with Parler deplatforming, I am building a service no one can silence

#199

Post by mk4p »

tone wrote: post #80
ThomW wrote: post #9

Parler is a shit hole, and at this point I’m not sure we need another social network anything. The major ones do a lousy job of policing fake news and misinformation, and from your tone it sounds like you support that garbage. I’m pretty sure giving every moron on earth a globally-accessible soapbox is about the stupidest idea humankind has ever had.

I'm not sure how anyone holds this opinion. Do you really believe that this will result in fair, unbiased reporting? Who is the long-term great arbiter not only of the news but removal of non-news? I'm also not sure why your worldview seems to be that given access to all opinions, the stupidest ones too, people will not and cannot learn to make informed judgements for themselves. You will see some stupidity but it's…

Watch https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224 and see how effectively social networks can hijack the human brain for nefarious (or just irresponsible) ends.

Re: Frustrated with Parler deplatforming, I am building a service no one can silence

#200

Post by ThomW »

drukenemo wrote: post #187
ThomW wrote: post #9

Parler is a shit hole, and at this point I’m not sure we need another social network anything. The major ones do a lousy job of policing fake news and misinformation, and from your tone it sounds like you support that garbage. I’m pretty sure giving every moron on earth a globally-accessible soapbox is about the stupidest idea humankind has ever had.

The first problem it pops-out when I read your comment is that you are sure your opinions represent the good and opinions that go against yours are objectively the evil. Censoring what is not what you want to express is thus virtuous. Imagine for a moment that this platform would be against calling for “censoring morons” and thus your comment banned.

If the same folks who believe that building a bulletproof Parler is a good idea think I'm a moron, I think I'm in a pretty good position morally.
Post reply on HN