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

211–218 of 218 posts

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

#211

Post by ulisesrmzroche »

chrissnell wrote: post #24
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?

Sure, draw it along established legal lines, but stay away from silencing things that you simply disagree with.

This is a straw man. No one is censoring flat-earthers. We’re not burning people at the stake for practicing witchcraft or fucking stuffed animals or engaging in BDSM. This is about murder and terrorism. Be clear about what you’re defending if you’re so proud of it

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

#212

Post by falcolas »

danaris wrote: post #208
falcolas wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To my mind, we're having a disagreement on a fundamental point:

I believe that just because some forms of speech has consequences, that doesn't inherently restrict speech.

What I'm reading of your stance is that since there are consequences for some forms of speech, this forms an implied and mandatory restriction on speech.

The difference is subtle, but it's leading to us talking past each other, particularly when it comes to discussing technology that enables free speech.

Unfortunately, this difference is not something I feel I can resolve on this forum.

Good luck!

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

#213

Post by oehpr »

nerdponx wrote: post #49

Can anyone comment on the actual technical merit of this project? This seems like a kind of hybrid among other various distributed networks out there, like IPFS, Tor, Freenet, GNUnet, Zeronet, et alia. As for the political side... just remember that amoral selfish people with reprehensible values are entitled to the same rights as the rest of us, and we should be applauding their desire to build tools that benefit ev…

I agree with the sentiment that morally bankrupt people are people too. The problem is that these people end up flooding and drowning out open access platforms and create a toxic environment for everyone but them.

And I don't believe it's impossible to have a platform that these people can be on without them subsequently destroying the platform. I've personally got a design for a network I think that can accomplish these objectives. I'm sure there are many strategies that can work.

But if a new social network makes a pitch and it doesn't go way out of its way to say how they're going to contain the massive influx of toxic runoff from the mainline social networks, then I can assume that if I join, that will be the environment. I can assume the only people on that board are the people too extreme for 4chan. I'll pass.

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

#214

Post by danaris »

falcolas wrote: post #212
danaris wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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…

To my mind, we're having a disagreement on a fundamental point: I believe that just because some forms of speech has consequences, that doesn't inherently restrict speech. What I'm reading of your stance is that since there are consequences for some forms of speech, this forms an implied and mandatory restriction on speech. The difference is subtle, but it's leading to us talking past each other, particularly when it…

There are natural consequences of speech, and there are legal consequences of speech.

Natural consequences are things like if I say "I hate people who wear hats," and I get an internet mob coming after me to defend hats.

Legal consequences would be if I happen to wander into a jurisdiction that has outlawed badmouthing hat-wearers, and I get arrested.

Legal consequences of speech are restrictions on free speech, because they are something humans specifically and deliberately chose and could un-choose. Natural consequences are just that: natural.

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

#215

Post by jfengel »

tone wrote: post #203
subsection1h wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It has been fairly stable. Creationism went from 38% in 1983 to 33% today (but with enough variability that it was also 38% as recently as 2017). "God made evolution happen" is another 40-44%, again fairly stable. Given the margin of errors in the polls, I'd say that they're pretty much the same, or a very slight decrease.

"It's just evolution" did change noticeably, but it's still only 22%. That's up from 9% in 1983.

So presumably the "i dunnos" are decreasing. But nothing seems to alter the misinformation very much.

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

#216

Post by viklove »

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/

That statistic is only meaningful if you also provide the same statistic for other demographic groups.

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

#217

Post by effie »

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.

That part is clear. What is not clear is how does he determine who is intolerant enough to fall in that category. And also, what that proposal of righteous intolerance means. Does he stop listening to them? Does he de-platform them? Does he incite the mob against them?

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

#218

Post by krainboltgreene »

mieses wrote: post #168
krainboltgreene wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather than letting your emotions run wild, perhaps asking questions and thinking carefully might make more sense. That's incredibly presumptuous of you to the point of being very rude.

Presumably you're ok with "you want to create a space run by and for racist pieces of garbage".

Whataboutism is not suitable for civil discourse.
Post reply on HN