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

Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

play.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 880 posts

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#671

Post by amanaplanacanal »

ralph84 wrote: post #170
nathankunicki wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newspapers and magazines have always had a choice who or what to print in their papers. TV and radio stations have always had a choice who or what to air. Why shouldn't social media companies have the same liberties?

Social media companies are protected by Section 230 while newspapers and magazines aren't. If social media companies are going to act like newspapers and magazines then they shouldn't be shielded from liability for their content.

Online newspapers and magazines frequently allow comments from readers, and they are absolutely protected by section 230 for the same reason that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#672

Post by modriano »

djsumdog wrote: post #611
modriano wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you at all worried about the possibility that America could have another civil war because a sufficiently large proportion of Americans are radicalized in uncensored, insufficiently moderated communities? Facebook's own research found “64% of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools” and that most of the activity came from the platform’s “Groups You Should Join” and “Discover” algorithms: “Ou…

> large proportion of Americans are radicalized in uncensored You do realize, both sides of America think the other side is radicalized. This was literally the reaction on Trump's first day of office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXR3d22BhHs Have you forgotten about that? Does that look anything like the 6th? No, of course it doesn't. Had those people been let into the State House, it may have burned to the ground…

> You do realize, both sides of America think the other side is radicalized.

On Wednesday, while our elected Representatives and Senators were in the process of finalizing the count of the US election, armed Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol. Several of these people were carrying zip-tie handcuffs and were hunting for Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer. 5 people died in this insurrection attempt. Here's the video of the QAnon insurrectionist who was shot by the Capitol Police as she was breaking into the area where our elected Reps and Senators had retreated to.

This was an attempt to overthrow our government, and it's a matter of luck that our legislators weren't executed by this mob. Attempting to "Both Sides" this is intellectually dishonest, as a riot in the streets is a categorically different thing than a seditious conspiracy that involved the violent disruption of the finalization of results from our election.

> Are you saying no one can launch a social network unless they have the money and staff to moderate each an every single post that comes in?

I'm not intimately familiar with Section 230, but I don't want my country destroyed. If Google and Apple facilitate distribution of a toxic product that destroys my country, that's a problem for me.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ash...

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#673

Post by idiot900 »

zaroth wrote: post #580
idiot900 wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't bother with your bizarre argument, but you are flagrantly taking Harris' words out of context. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/13/fac...

I don’t know if you realize you’re making exactly my point. This “fact check” is the kind of laughable gaslighting that got us here. The YouTube videos speak for themselves. The death toll speaks for itself. > Colbert: ”I know there are protests still happening in major cities across the United States, I'm just not seeing the reporting on it that I had for the first few weeks," The “protests” were violet mobs which d…

Harris was warning that those terrible riots would continue, not encouraging them. The meaning is quite clear, but I don't think I can convince you of that.

Quote from Harris: “It’s no wonder people are taking to the streets and I support them. We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protestors. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter who was arrested for murder. And make no mistake, we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice.”

We agree the BLM riots were bad. The Seattle insurrection especially. But Kamala Harris did not encourage them. Trump did encourage an insurrection against our government. There is a massive difference.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#674

Post by roenxi »

mumblemumble wrote: post #629
roenxi wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're allowing the BLM supporters to characterise their motivations, and the Trump opponents to characterise the motivations of this protest. That isn't fair. Someone who turns up in a Viking hat, tattoos and a spear isn't looking for a fight. A person looking for a fight wears a mask, armour, carries a gun and probably camouflage.

When someone's prominently displaying white supremacist imagery on their torso, it's hardly putting words into their mouth to characterize them as a white supremacist. When people wear imagery and slogans to any demonstration, I afford them the courtesy of understanding that what they're displaying on their bodies is part of the message they want to communicate.

Mr. Viking hat probably isn't an entire protest, even if his horns are intimidating. And even as a group the people storming the capitol probably don't represent most of the protestors, typically the bulk of protests are law abiding and peaceful and there are just a few bad eggs looking to cause trouble.

The core of the protest is electoral integrity and calls for the politically marginalised to have a voice, not racial supremacy.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#675

Post by iujjkfjdkkdkf »

malwarebytess wrote: post #573
iujjkfjdkkdkf wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of pedants are telling you it's not censorship and they are technically correct, these private platforms are within their rights to decide how they are used. And many people have raised concerns before about what it means that we've given so much power to these platforms. I hope this goes down as the time the big platforms overplayed their hand and made people realise that even though we have turned over so muc…

While they may be pedants, I am anally right. On a personal level I think those who chime in to cry that it's not censorship are myopic fools. It is absolutely censorship. It's textbook, dictionary, censorship. Take wikipedia's great opening paragraph: >Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive,…

Right, it's censorship, it's not first amendment limitation of free speech, I think that is where the semantics come in.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#676

Post by setr »

wnevets wrote: post #649
setr wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...yes? What do you think gets posted during basically every political event? BLM, obama election, trump election, biden election, etc... Calls for riot and murder are like the standard go-to on social media, if only because extreme posts gather a lot more steam than anything diluted. I mean shit we just went through 4 years of liberals and conservatives fighting over this shit dramatically all over twitter -- I'm re…

So what exactly is your threshold before Google should be allowed remove a social media platform from their app store?

I’m only really concerned with consistency. This is just selective enforcement, with fairly obvious political motivation and timing.

Google doesn’t just randomly grow a set of morals and balls after a decade of silence about similar behavior by/on Twitter, fb, yikyak, tiktok, Snapchat, etc.

Hell, even encouragement if you count things like planning terrorist attacks and successfully killing/harming dozens on WhatsApp, and not immediately banning the application, as well as probably every communication system available on the phone.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#677

Post by laverya »

danijelb wrote: post #168
kortilla wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it’s censorship. Censorship has nothing to do with who is doing it. Whether a private company suppresses communication or the government does it, it’s still censorship.

So the government should be able to force your business to do something against your will? That doesn't sound like free market of which USA, and particularly conservatives, are so proud of.

> So the government should be able to force your business to do something against your will?

This ship sailed 50 years ago, I'm afraid. Businesses can no longer discriminate (including refusal to serve) on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability, veteran status, and a variety of other factors. Now, this is almost certainly a good thing - there's been a few negative consequences of the change (destruction of black businesses, for one) but on net it's not really close.

So really all people are asking for is "political affiliation" to be looked at like "religion". And honestly, there's a smaller and smaller set of differences between the two categories as the years go by.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#678

Post by lenkite »

jude- wrote: post #626
SpaceRaccoon wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting. Do you feel the same way about a company refusing to serve Jews or Blacks? Is it their right?

Under the current anti-discrimination laws, political affiliation is not a protected class. Religion, race, sexuality, etc., however, are.

Interesting, I didn't know that. So a business can actually deny a service depending on political affiliation.

Of-course this can be challenged in the courts. Well, unless, it's protected by 230.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#679

Post by xref »

agiroth wrote: post #619
zmmmmm wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at it this way: when private companies censor something the user has the option to go elsewhere to exercise their speech. When the government does it, they can't go anywhere. In this case, if a significant number of people are disenfranchised by this, it will naturally create the market pressure for a solution that they can use. It will spur adoption of tools like F-droid and open devices etc. It'll force these…

If there were a large, vibrant community of public squares, I'd very much agree with you; the problem is that the network effect means that there will only ever be 2-3 big ones. It's a form of natural monopoly if not monopoly-in-fact and that has to be accounted for if "the people" are to remain in control of their ability to exercise their rights. So, one solution would be to foster an environment where Twitter et.a…

> If there were a large, vibrant community of public squares

You’re exercising your free speech in one right now.

I don’t even have an account of any of the “monopoly” ones.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#680

Post by heavyset_go »

djsumdog wrote: post #132
post_break wrote: post #4

Wow, is this the great purge? I don’t support certain people, but man I don’t think this is going to end well. This censorship just seems crazy to me.

The purge has been happening for years. I hate how people on HN is praising this. There are literally few alternatives for the average person apart from Google and eyeProducts. I have a PinePhone, but what percentage of America can truly put in the effort to use one? If you cannot install an run your own software on a device, you do not own the device. You cannot praise the removal of Gab or Parlor now and complain l…

Where were all of the free speech absolutists a decade ago when Twitter, Facebook and Google started removing Islamic content from their platforms under the guise of dealing with extremist content? I seem to recall them cheering those companies on.
Post reply on HN