Live data from Hacker News

Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

nytimes.com

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

#392
post #146

I've read comments saying, "if you don't like Apple's policies, build a new smartphone." Are these people aware that that the same type of argument lead to the creation of parler: "if you don't like twitter censorship, build a new platform". It will be built. What then? At this point we are heading towards a complete mitosis of our information channels based on political ideology.

Now that Parler also is booted from AWS, it's basically "build a new internet".

"Build your own services if you like free speech so much" was never a honest proposition. It was a "shut up" proposition - because when, to the surprise of the censors, it was built and was successful, they took all possible measures to destroy it. They were never for "we will have our own and you can have our own" - it always was "we will control everything and you will shut up and do what you told".

Whatever are your political leanings and whatever you think of Trump or Parler - if this thing - total and absolute control of a handful of corporations over what can be spoken on the internet, and their willingness to ruthlessly exercise this control to suppress any non-censorious companies - if this thing is not scaring you, you're delusional. You probably think you will never commit wrongthink so it doesn't apply to you. Read some history, it never worked this way, it won't work this way this time either. Censorship, allowed to run free, always gets worse.

Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

#393
post #312

Slippery slope is accelerating. Soon any wrongthink will get you banned by the tech cabal.

Slippery slope does not mean "a thing I don't like" happened. Amazon had multiple, clear asks that Parler refused to adopt. They didn't even delete posts that Amazon had sent to them and informed them were problematic. That's literally the bare minimum.

Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

#394

The whole Parler thing is very interesting to me. Many people point out that Twitter, Facebook, and other social networks have the same TOS violating content that Parler does but I wonder if this will come down to a "reasonable attempt" situation like Youtube copyright. Youtube and later on Twitch got into trouble with the RIAA and other major media groups because Youtube allows users to upload copyrighted material.…

The thing is that Trump did never incite or use hate speech. He did the opposite. He said stay peaceful. Go Home. Yet he was censored of social media!

Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

#397
The tech monopolies will go to any length and use any excuse to protect their monopoly power. Looks like they're now in the backscratching business.

This is just a pretext for them to do what they would have found an excuse to do anyway.

Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

#398

Where do we draw the line on how we censor the internet? Obviously actual terrorist group sites can and should be taken down, but this feels like it's getting more murky than that. - Should we be okay with Facebook censoring these groups? - Should we be okay with Google censoring search results? - Should we be okay with Apple censoring apps? - Should we be okay with AWS censoring websites? - Should we be okay with Go…

Another view is about what services on the internet should be considered a commons, particularly as more interaction shifts to online rather than in-person spaces. Physical commons are regulated through local action and laws with some basis in democratic action. Online commons are generally near-absolute dictatorships run by a for-profit company where the only restrictions are minor government regulations that would make them liable for users' actions under certain circumstances. Otherwise, any commons can purge users for essentially any reason with no input from those using the commons.

I won't suggest solutions to this at the moment other than to say there are more options that providing democratic power over existing private commons. There could be public online commons that are guaranteed to meet certain standards, for example, and for private spaces to not compete and subsume them. Though this is speaking vaguely - there are many potential discussions to have about what a public digital commons could look like.

Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

#399
post #198

The short term calculus seems pretty clear: if a service is unable to moderate conversations that are inciting and planning imminent violence that undermines the fabric of democratic society (aka inauguration or the disruption of the transfer of power over the next 12 days), its better to shut it off than keep it around in case that violence comes to pass. Precautionary principle applies and a circuit breaker goes of…

I guess the current consensus in the US is that it's okay for companies and medias to be arbitrators of what's wrong and what's right. What I don't understand is why companies have double standards. For instances below, a politician, a media anchor, and a random singer. They didn't incite violence?

-- Khamenei wanted to eradicate a people: https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784?l...

-- Chris Cuomo said protests didn't need to be peaceful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezGyemHna_k

-- A rapper sang about how to rob Chinese families because "they don't believe in bank accounts": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFxOsUe0I8o

And what about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRnmnxVtDqg That's okay because the right people claimed that Kavanaugh was a rapist?

Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

#400

Where do we draw the line on how we censor the internet? Obviously actual terrorist group sites can and should be taken down, but this feels like it's getting more murky than that. - Should we be okay with Facebook censoring these groups? - Should we be okay with Google censoring search results? - Should we be okay with Apple censoring apps? - Should we be okay with AWS censoring websites? - Should we be okay with Go…

Why is this not a terrorism site to you?

It's been used to conduct a terrorist attack this week. It's being used to plan a terrorist attack in the coming days.

The creators were given a chance to clean house and take measures. They haven't.

So why is this not a terrorist platform in your mind? Is there a belief that Americans cannot be terrorists?

Edit: you added a clarification that these are not official terrorist groups as classified by intelligence agencies. However white supremacists are considered to be significant terrorist threats by many agencies. (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-...). Parler is a haven for unchecked white supremacy. Therefore it is reasonably classifiable as a terrorist site

Post reply on HN