Frustrated with Parler deplatforming, I am building a service no one can silence • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by ThomW » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

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…

I loved the early Internet, and initially stoked when more and more people got onto it. I thought we'd enter an enlightened age of education and everyone could live up to their potential. Obviously, that's not what happened at all, and the current-day internet is a cess pool of people profiting off misinformation and encouraging these stupid bubbles where people are fed a feedback loop of bullshit.

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

#202

Post by tone » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 4:57 PM UTC

mk4p wrote: post #199

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…

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

I could see some irony in this.

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

#203

Post by tone » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

subsection1h wrote: post #186

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…

38% of the white evangelical Protestants who responded to Pew Research Center's survey[1] said that humans have always existed in their present form. But maybe you're right; maybe these people just need more time to become informed. It's only been 160 years since On the Origin of Species was published. We need to be more patient. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/11/darwin-day/

I know you're being facetious, but you actually prove the point well. I wonder what that % was 10, 20, 30, 50 years ago. I wonder which direction it's going?

But no I'm sure it would be far better if we banned such heretic thoughts and enforced our worldview.

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

#204

Post by tone » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

mlindner wrote: post #137

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…

> Do you really believe that this will result in fair, unbiased reporting? One could make the argument that the eras in which only those who had money or political power had a real voice resulted in a more stable society. Allow everyone to have a voice (full freedom of speech) but outlaw platforms that truly try to give a voice to everyone. If someone really wants to put out a message they can go to the street corner…

A fair point. I'm not sure stability and freedoms generally always increase along the same line here. You can definitely increase stability while stifling freedoms. Not that they necessary directly correlate, but I imagine one way to cheaply and quickly gain some level of temporary stability is to stifle freedoms.

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

#205

Post by gchamonlive » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 5:16 PM UTC

RhysU wrote: post #192

wrycoder wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is very kantian. If someone came to your door and asked you to point to where your children were so he could murder them, would you tell the truth just because lying is wrong?

Similarly, would you tolerate hate speech that could put your life in jeopardy just because you believe in free speech?

The point I believe is not taking the ideal to its maximum blindly, but clearly defining boundaries you can't cross, even if it meant behaving intolerantly.

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

#206

Post by falcolas » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #196

falcolas wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 irreleva…

Here's the problem with this method of thinking: Any speech could be considered to be illegal by somebody. Better to create technology to let people talk, and leave the enforcement of laws to the individual countries. Attempting to pre-emptively censor speech because it's potentially illegal somewhere results in no speech.

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

#207

Post by gchamonlive » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 6:52 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #197

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.…

what we have to do then is to clearly define tolerance boundaries we cannot cross. Anything beyond that should be dealt with outside the boundaries of law.

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

#208

Post by danaris » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 7:01 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #206

danaris wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 irreleva…

Here's the problem with this method of thinking: Any speech could be considered to be illegal by somebody . Better to create technology to let people talk, and leave the enforcement of laws to the individual countries. Attempting to pre-emptively censor speech because it's potentially illegal somewhere results in no speech.

...I'm literally responding to you dismissing the question of whether one should view blocking distributing child pornography as being a restriction on free speech by saying (paraphrased) "there are laws against distributing child pornography, so it must not be a restriction on free speech."

I was merely pointing out that, if we want to have a discussion about what types of speech should and shouldn't be allowed, we need to be clear with ourselves and each other about what actually constitutes speech, and restrictions thereupon.

I'm having a hard time telling where you're reading in my post a suggestion that (e.g.), because criticism of the Thai monarchy is strictly prohibited in Thailand, we should technologically restrict such speech in the US.

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

#209

Post by DougN7 » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 8:31 PM UTC

giveexamples wrote: post #182

cmeacham98 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did I claim that I was the right person to judge this for all of society? I make these choices for myself by choosing what types of people I associate with, and I am a tiny part of making this decision for society at large by voting. In my opinion, society is more tolerant when we do not let the intolerant people hijack it to spread intolerance. In other words, intolerance is some of that "bad behavior" that sh…

There are at least two types of tolerance - for ideas (eg censorship), for people (eg racial conflict). I believe we should accept both sorts of intolerance but to a degree. For ideas - remove ideas by banning / censorship, or add ideas by promoting 'better' ideas - this seems like a possible avenue to improving society's mental health. The main objection is whoever controls what to ban / allow is given a lot of powe…

I like the idea of promoting better ideas (love instead of hate), but looking around I feel like that has failed recently with Parler, QAnon, etc all being proof.

Maybe the problem is the media (and social media) which is the vast vast majority of where ideas are promoted, and neither is where positive ideas get promoted. I’m not quite sure why that is - must have something to do with human nature.

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

#210

Post by ulisesrmzroche » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 8:40 PM UTC

effie wrote: post #150

nerdponx wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth copying and pasting the quote used on Wikipedia, because it actually espouses a very strong view that I think many Americans, even moderate ones, might find surprising: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolera…

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.

No, you’re just being facetious. The problem is that for yall, everything needs to be sacrificed at the altar of free speech, even reading comprehension. This is exactly what Popper is saying: we can’t tolerate the intolerant because they don’t play by the same rules.