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

Deplatforming Is Wrong

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: Deplatforming Is Wrong

#11

Post by phendrenad2 »

kangaroozach wrote: post #9
mproud wrote: post #2

When a platform refuses to monitor and remove seditious activity and incitement for violence is when they fail and need to be dropped.

Can you cite or link to What Trump said to incite the siege on the capital (as opposed to just getting people to its steps peacefully as he’s been talking about for 2 weeks)? Honest question...I literally can’t find it anywhere. I want to know what he said to incite violence. I assume he broke the law in-doing so as it’s illegal to call for violence I think.

Not Trump, Parler was full of seditious calls for violence against politicians. And Parler was either unwilling or unable to delete all of it.

Re: Deplatforming Is Wrong

#12

Post by drKarl »

I'm European, but if I were in America I would not be republican, I might be democrat. I don't like Trump as President or even as a human being. I think Trump is a sore loser who should've accepted the election results and I think it's despicable that he incited his followers to insurrect and take the Capitol. I also think he's desperate because either he exiles to a country without extradition with the USA or he's going to prison (I believe he'll exile).

I can even understand Twitter and Facebook banning him until the 20th to avoid another violent incident.

On the other hand, I never used Parler, but I think Amazon and other providers should not deny service to Parler, as I understand Parler is just a Platform that allows free speech. They're just killing the messenger. I don't agree with those MAGA or QAnon or Antivaxxers, but they should be allowed to discuss freely. I'm an atheist, what if someone decided atheists have dangerous ideas and they shouldn't be allowed to have a platform to discuss? If the internet existed a few centuries ago that would've definitely happened.

Also Trump had a personal crusade against Jeff Bezos, so I believe Bezos is just trying to claim some payback.

Re: Deplatforming Is Wrong

#14

Post by flukus »

riffnote wrote: post #6
cable2600 wrote: post #4

Companies don't want to be tied to hate speech or speech that causes people to riot. It may not seem fair, but companies are private and not a part of the government so there is no freedom of speech.

Google, Facebook, Apple etc are already deeply influencing the way we think. Deplatforming discussion forums for people who feel isolated and misunderstood is a bold step towards mass compliance and brainwashing. I feel sorry for radicalized Republicans. They can be reached. Banning, deplatforming and isolating is the opposite of what we should be doing. Big tech should be creating more platforms for them, and more o…

A year ago I would have agreed, but a laissez faire approach has been the dominant one for quite a while now and is what has led us to this point. It clearly hasn't reduced these extremists and something else must be tried.

Re: Deplatforming Is Wrong

#16

Post by rvz »

mproud wrote: post #2

When a platform refuses to monitor and remove seditious activity and incitement for violence is when they fail and need to be dropped.

Until they move to another platform which cannot be dropped / de-platformed. Meanwhile Gab gets another 600,000 sign ups. The point is, it is still alive there and is getting stronger by the minute.

Well done for showing that de-platforming is working and that it is reducing and removing 'seditious activity'. /s (It isn't.)

Re: Deplatforming Is Wrong

#18

Post by erik_seaberg »

drKarl wrote: post #17

I don't understand why has this post been flagged, it's a legitimate opinion

Every social media story this weekend is turning into a referendum on the marketplace of ideas, which HN can probably argue endlessly about without reaching a novel conclusion.

Re: Deplatforming Is Wrong

#19

Post by evgen »

rvz wrote: post #16
mproud wrote: post #2

When a platform refuses to monitor and remove seditious activity and incitement for violence is when they fail and need to be dropped.

Until they move to another platform which cannot be dropped / de-platformed. Meanwhile Gab gets another 600,000 sign ups. The point is, it is still alive there and is getting stronger by the minute. Well done for showing that de-platforming is working and that it is reducing and removing 'seditious activity'. /s (It isn't.)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but so far it has been rather clearly demonstrated that de-platforming works for diminishing interest and engagement with some of these more dangerous groups. It raises the bar for alternative systems, makes a casual redirect difficult (c.f. algorithmic push towards some of these groups due to perceived higher engagement/controversy), and generally puts the nutjobs into their own little echo chamber where we can watch them.

Must be a bitter pill to swallow, but you are simply wrong. There are few platforms that cannot be diminished, and the further out these groups are pushed the harder it becomes for them to maintain the interest of a large potential audience. While there is always a signup bump after big events (c.f. the parler and Gab bumps when some of the more egregiously intolerant Trump groups were dumped from reddit and other places) this never lasts and eventually the only group that remains on these sites is the core nucleus of nazi assholes that no one wanted in the first place.

Re: Deplatforming Is Wrong

#20

Post by HelloNurse »

The problem is feeling entitled to services (individual extremists to social networks, Parler to AWS) in the name of free speech, while in reality these problem customers are demanding a commercial relationship with companies who dislike them enough to refuse business.

Despite contrary perception, web sites aren't a limited resource (like, say, newspaper distribution) that needs antitrust regulations. Parler can run its service without AWS, and individual extremists can exercise their right to free speech elsewhere, without imposing their presence where they are unwanted.

Post reply on HN