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

Kanye West is buying Parler

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 939 posts

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#131

Post by MonkeyMalarky »

dmix wrote: post #114
tgv wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do we need an absolute free speech platform? What good does it do? > The only somewhat free place I've seen is 4Chan but it contains so much toxicity, that's its barely bearable. Sounds like a hint to me. There are more free speech sites, e.g. saidit.net. I would wholeheartedly recommend staying away from it: it's a cesspool, like the other reddit wannabes. Voat also comes to mind. Freedom of speech on such sites…

When only the rejects use the sites of course it's going to be full of bad content. That doesn't mean there isn't value in free speech being better valued on mainstream platforms.

When given the choice between platforms, why do you think the majority continues to congregate on the more restrictive ones?

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#132

Post by MuffinFlavored »

tptacek wrote: post #117

This is really a story about a celebrity's mental illness and public breakdown. If you haven't been following the news, West has spent the week saying increasingly unhinged things, not just about politics but about Pete Davidson, his wife, and (if I'm remembering right) his kids and the fake actor children that have been installed in his former home to corrupt them. He was interviewed for a show on Fox and a big chun…

> This is really a story about a celebrity's mental illness and public breakdown.

Devil's advocate: there's no way this isn't the case for Kanye, right? Why is this mental illness sparking up later in his life? Why was he able to achieve everything he's achieved 1996 -> 2012 (Roc-A-Fella -> The College Dropout -> My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy era) without these "mental illness" bouts?

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#133

Post by Dylan16807 »

sph wrote: post #126
mrtksn wrote: post #11

Musk and everyone else is right that we do need a platform with free speech. The only problem is that all those free speech advocates are actually NIMBY's when it comes to free speech. I have been following self proclaimed free speech absolutists(because I too, believe in free speech but don't believe it exists) and they are totally not the kind of people that say "I hate what you say but I will die defending your ri…

> The only problem is that all those free speech advocates are actually NIMBY's when it comes to free speech It's unclear from your comment. Are you saying that Musk and West are our free speech champions and everybody else is a poser? Because Musk and West do not care about free speech either. It's the problem these rich idiots all claim to have: "I need a platform where my voice can be heard," while their voice alr…

Musk and West are part of "all those".

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#134

Post by Jonovono »

tptacek wrote: post #117

This is really a story about a celebrity's mental illness and public breakdown. If you haven't been following the news, West has spent the week saying increasingly unhinged things, not just about politics but about Pete Davidson, his wife, and (if I'm remembering right) his kids and the fake actor children that have been installed in his former home to corrupt them. He was interviewed for a show on Fox and a big chun…

No post body was provided.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#135

Post by shadowgovt »

tlb wrote: post #84
tgv wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do we need an absolute free speech platform? What good does it do? > The only somewhat free place I've seen is 4Chan but it contains so much toxicity, that's its barely bearable. Sounds like a hint to me. There are more free speech sites, e.g. saidit.net. I would wholeheartedly recommend staying away from it: it's a cesspool, like the other reddit wannabes. Voat also comes to mind. Freedom of speech on such sites…

A platform that hosted both objectionable speech and regular speech together might be tolerable to read. But the most of the regular speech ends up on popular platforms than ban objectionable speech, so the free-speech sites are left with mostly the objectionable stuff, which makes them pretty unpleasant to read. It makes it hard to start a new platform. People start free-speech platforms with good intentions of havi…

The hidden piece of the puzzle here is that objectionable speech pushes regular speech out.

Most users don't want to wade through toxicity to get to signal. If they're discussing a topic of interest, say baking, and someone comes in and starts ranting on how a vast global conspiracy made up of surprisingly-homogeneous ethnicity given its global scale is pushing up the price of yeast to weaken the market for white bread, either the moderators squelch that noise or people who want to talk about baking go somewhere else to do it.

Given their own freedom, when given a choice, users tend to select moderated channels over unmoderated ones. We've been doing the Internet long enough to know this to be true.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#137

Post by francisofascii »

shafyy wrote: post #111
mariusor wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think moderation should be about the words that are being said, not the ideas that are being discussed. A free speech platform should allow a wide range of topics, but it's not expected to stand for all manner of trolling and bad faith argumentation. I think that conflating the two is tripping a lot of people up in the debate about the topic.

I disagree. There are limits to what ideas constitute free speech in many modern countries. As an extreme example, an idea that puts forward genocide as acceptable form of action should never be allowed under "free speech", even if it's said with nice words. This and other examples are ruled under law in many developed countries.

> an idea that puts forward genocide as acceptable form of action should never be allowed under "free speech"

See I have a problem with the word "never". How about "rarely" or at least "once". A terrible idea should be given an audience once. Let it it be quickly refuted, then go back to better conversations. If someone brings it up again, point them back to the earlier discussion. That way it is established why it is a bad idea.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#138

Post by Aloha »

mrtksn wrote: post #11

Musk and everyone else is right that we do need a platform with free speech. The only problem is that all those free speech advocates are actually NIMBY's when it comes to free speech. I have been following self proclaimed free speech absolutists(because I too, believe in free speech but don't believe it exists) and they are totally not the kind of people that say "I hate what you say but I will die defending your ri…

Absolute free speech and anonymity is a toxic combination.

Free speech in the way it was envisaged in the constitution presumes there is a feedback loop back to the emitter of the speech. Anonymity breaks that feedback loop. Anyone who tells you that free speech without consequences has ever existed pretty much anywhere is lying to themselves and to you.

If you want anonymity you need some measure of bounds on speech in those places.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#139

Post by mmastrac »

Jonovono wrote: post #134
tptacek wrote: post #117

This is really a story about a celebrity's mental illness and public breakdown. If you haven't been following the news, West has spent the week saying increasingly unhinged things, not just about politics but about Pete Davidson, his wife, and (if I'm remembering right) his kids and the fake actor children that have been installed in his former home to corrupt them. He was interviewed for a show on Fox and a big chun…

Quoted post unavailable.

We don't have all the info, but let's not kid ourselves that mental illness can't be visible from a distance.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#140

Post by Dylan16807 »

pavlov wrote: post #121
dmix wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When only the rejects use the sites of course it's going to be full of bad content. That doesn't mean there isn't value in free speech being better valued on mainstream platforms.

> “When only the rejects use the sites of course it's going to be full of bad content.” The problem with this theory is that 4chan is older than both Twitter and Facebook. If unmoderated speech created an inherently better platform, surely 4chan would have captured the market a long time ago and cut off commercial alternatives like Craigslist did.

And 4chan got much worse over time, there's no reason it had to be rejects at all. The toxicity was entirely self directed.
Post reply on HN