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

681–690 of 939 posts

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#681

Post by AlexandrB »

LatteLazy wrote: post #380
thedougd wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can try to disincentivize private censorship, but unlikely to stop it. I believe the primary argument is forcing these companies to publish speech is a violation of their own free speech.

Right now section 230 means you can censor without censoring perfectly and not get sued. Repealing it means Facebook are liable for anything posted there IF the censor at all. So Facebook either gives up all censorship (free speech!), or gives up all user driven content (unlikely). That's just civil law, the constitutional right to free speech doesn't cover getting sued for it. Even if it does apply to corporations r…

I'm pretty sure repealing section 230 would mean companies would be liable for everything posted on their platforms. I would expect censorship/moderation to reach broadcast TV levels in that case.

> At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

>> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#682

Post by armatav »

VikingCoder wrote: post #409
seanw444 wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life is full of hurt. That's a reality people can't come to terms with. "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good."

Communication that can be censored is good. "true free speech" is the perfection you're striving for. "Life is full of hurt." Are you an arms dealer? Why not? It's profitable, and sure, people get hurt, but what's the problem with that?

“Communication that can be censored is good”.

You should be able to choose what you see, not what other people say.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#683

Post by bondarchuk »

AlexandrB wrote: post #677
bondarchuk wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are specific reasons to be wary of the way psychiatric diagnosis is used vs. other insults: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry

By that token, the same wariness should be applied to calling someone a "Communist" thanks to McCarthyism. I think this might be a valid point if US government officials were calling Kanye mentally ill, but a bunch of people on the internet?

Strictly speaking nothing matters cuz we're all just rando's typing on the internet. But since we were having a discussion I thought I'd chime in with some vaguely relevant points...

Btw I think it would've been quite dangerous indeed to call someone a communist during mccarthy era, and indeed one should've been wary of that back then.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#685

Post by npteljes »

bondarchuk wrote: post #679
npteljes wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link is the source, but he used the "you" pronoun and I rephrased it as "him". Sorry for the confusion, I probably need to do better on a public forum like this. Wikipedia also has a paragraph about it, if you'd like to dig into this topic further. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanye_West#Mental_health Also I reject the assumption that I assumed that "whenever someone is forcibly restrained and medicated, it was…

It's not evidence for "unable to manage his own affairs" in the present instance.

It's not. I should have been clear about referring only to the mental issues part.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#686

Post by awb »

commandlinefan wrote: post #395
awb wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet again, I like that Musk and Kanye kind of people claim that they want free speech because at least we can hold them responsible when they don't deliver it. Really? They've never defined free speech, so how can we hold them accountable? The idea of a "free speech absolutist" is a complete joke destined for legal consequences. For example, I don't think they mean free speech is the ability to post obscene content…

> the ability to post obscene content, threats, state secrets, corporate IP, or any other legal restrictions Free speech opponents always like to point to these examples when the topic of free speech comes up, but I've never seen free speech advocates use an example of any of these as examples of problematic censorship - instead, they (we) point out voluminous examples of unfashionable opinions being removed. In fact…

> I've never seen free speech advocates use an example of any of these as examples of problematic censorship

Just look at some of the exceptions to free speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

* Incitement

* False statements of fact

* Obscenity

* Fighting words

* Threatening the president of the United States

These are all grey areas that are constantly being tested and censored to varying degrees on multiple Social Media platforms. Trump was banned from Twitter because of “the risk of further incitement of violence” after Jan. 6. So it's very much at the crux of the issue on the debate whether or not Trump's speech on Twitter should have been protected by the platform or not, which is what really catalyzed Parler and Truth Social's branding in the market place as "pro- free speech".

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#687

Post by BWStearns »

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 somewhat free place I've seen is 4Chan but it contains so much toxicity, that's its barely bearable.

You've found the problem. There _are_ "anything legal" online spaces, and they _suck_. There's no way to have 0 moderation and not have the place turn basically into 4Chan.

If people really want to be on totally free speech platforms, they can just go on 4Chan, but what they really want is to force everyone else to engage with the toxic shit they want to say and no one else wants to hear.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#688

Post by least »

OrangeMonkey wrote: post #318
Joeri wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be free speech absolutist, but I am not any longer, especially when it comes to social media. The argument in favor of absolute free speech for me was basically “let everyone hear everything and make up their own mind”. This presumes that people are swayed by the content of an argument. This is a false assumption, people are mostly swayed by the volume of the argument. This is well documented in psychologic…

To those who espouse the idea that comments should be filtered for the greater good, I say 'You first.' There was a time period when the left was for free speech and the right was wanting to constrain it. Maybe its just a giant pendulum - there is no right/left difference when it comes to free speech - everyone wants to censor / filter the speech of the opposite side. If things come in cycles, then I expect the right…

> everyone wants to censor / filter the speech of the opposite side.

This is mostly because the left/right spectrum is too nebulous to be genuinely useful at understanding most people's values, which tend to be more nuanced than a one dimensional spectrum allows for. People that want to censor/filter speech are authoritarians. Nothing about authoritarianism uniquely binds it to the left or the right.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#689

Post by mrtksn »

jasonshaev wrote: post #345
mrtksn wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Requiring ID verification is adding limitations on who you permit to speak Do you mean that in countries where not everyone has government ID? That's not an issue, the government doesn't have to be the authority of ID. Besides, governments can create fake IDs for covert operations anyway. I don't suggest that everyone should connect to the internet with government issued ID card.

How do you verify someone's IRL identity without a government issued ID card in a scalable way? I don't mean some idea that could work at some arbitrary point in the future (decentralized whatever...). If a social media platform were to do this, right now, how would they do it without verifying a government issued ID?

Identity doesn't come into existence with the registration with a government, it's something you build over time as you interact with the world around you.

Nicknames are an identity and it's pretty much common these days to have nicknamed account on all over the internet. The problem with these is that one can have multiple of those and a behaviour in one place doesn't transfer into other places.

So maybe we can have across-the-internet identities. You are jasonshaev but who you are on twitter? on reddit? on other places? Once you become the person who is known around everywhere the same way, you have the identity that you would like to protect. You can't troll one place when bored then be known as a nice person somewhere else. I think that's good enough identity. The implementation can be around crypto, single sign in, face recognition etc.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#690

Post by [deleted] »

jccalhoun wrote: post #272
luckylion wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nevertheless obvious (although not to everyone) absurd, blatant lies and manipulations shouldn't be covered by the free speech umbrella. "Capitalism is the problem", "modern employment is wage slavery". These are absurd, blatant lies meant to manipulate. Would you have statements like that removed?

Being wrong is not lying. To be a lie the person has to know it isn't true. Whether those statements are untrue or not, I think that most people that say those things believe them to be true and so they are not lies.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN