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

71–80 of 939 posts

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#71

Post by smcl »

mrtksn wrote: post #69
smcl wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you feel about HN's approach - flagged or heavily downvoted comments are invisible if you are not logged in or if you have not changed "showdead" from the default unchecked state (at which point they're rendered in a hard-to-read colour)?

I don't like it when it's due to low score, it is an oppression of unpopular opinions. I like it when it's about flagged posts. I have the option enabled to show these posts and I would vouch if there's something worthy in it. So spam and other BS is "removed" but I still can take a look at it and see it for myself. Overall, I think HN is one of the best moderated online places.

So this is unusual to me, because flagging feels more open to abuse than the comment score. Indeed this very thing happened to me recently:

- user A says vaguely racist thing

- user B calls person out for racist thing

- user A cannot downvote a reply, so they flag it instead - making it disappear

So both can silence someone, but in one case many people need to disagree with someone and in the other you just need one person (or one person with an alt account if you want to go and revert a "vouch"). So if anything flagging is more prone to abuse than downvoting. I try to read greytext comments when I can and vouch whenever it looks unjust (and do something similar for downvoted posts) but from the looks of things not many people do.

edit: might as well include my example - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33164001

So I'd understand if I was downvoted and called out for my confrontational response to racism. Because at that point I'd reply that actually treating this kind of casual xenophobic comment as unserious and mocking the person is the most effective counter to this kind of behavious. Getting bogged down in debating the merits or worth of any individual person or where they might "belong" is exactly what this kind of person wants to do.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#72

Post by piva00 »

mrtksn wrote: post #53
tgv wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do we need an absolute free speech platform? What good does it do? > The only somewhat free place I've seen is 4Chan but it contains so much toxicity, that's its barely bearable. Sounds like a hint to me. There are more free speech sites, e.g. saidit.net. I would wholeheartedly recommend staying away from it: it's a cesspool, like the other reddit wannabes. Voat also comes to mind. Freedom of speech on such sites…

I think the problem lies in the impunity, not in the free speech itself. IMHO people should be allowed to say everything but they must accumulate the reputation for saying it. If someone is a racist bigot, they shouldn't be physically restrained(deleting posts is like physically covering someones' mouth) from being bigots but they should definitely be known for it. Then it's up to the community to decide how to inter…

> Another thing is the amplification: people pretending to be multiple people.

For a free speech absolutist curtailing this could also be seen as removing free speech.

> Lastly, we need some kind of spread management. We have the problem of BS getting huge traction and the correction getting no traction. Maybe everyone exposed to something should be re-exposed to the theme once there's a new development. For example, when people share someone's photo as a suspect and it turns out that the person in the photo is not the suspect, the platform can say "remember this Tweet? Yeah, there are some doubts about it. Just letting you know". The implementation of it wouldn't need a ministry of truth but a algo to track theme developments.

Still this wouldn't solve the issue with spread of BS, specially targeted BS: it is tailored to invoke and reinforce inherent biases and, on average, someone exposed to it will become less inclined to read/critically judge any rebuttal. Bullshit spreads much easier than well researched rebuttals, just by the nature of bullshit. It's a game where truth is bound to lose, no matter how many "algorithms" you implement to spread developments of a story to the same audience, the engagement of said audience to the rebuttals will vary depending on their biases. I'm not even including the required inherent drive and energy to actually follow-up, as an audience, on further developments, in the fast-paced world of social media people will selectively choose what to invest their energy into. Someone falling for bullshits won't want their effort to be thrown out by rebuttals and so will avoid such activities perceived as a waste of energy, after you formed an opinion it's much harder to un-form it.

I'm strictly in the camp that absolute free speech on social media is a fool's errand, at least in 2022. There is no upside to the massive downsides that we already see and experience, even in the scope of not existing with absolute free speech.

The detachment on social media between the written words vs the real humans behind those words causes a non-insignificant amount of grief that wouldn't happen in a in-person interaction. It seems that we humans easily lose our humanity when not in a real world social environment, the vileness is exaggerated while empathy is easily pushed aside.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#73

Post by feralfoo »

dd36 wrote: post #37
feralfoo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This looks more like pulling a 'Trump' with Truth Social, since they both got 'yeeted' from twitter and other platforms.

But he’s still on Twitter?

Who are you referring to? Both were banned. Ye was allowed back recently and was banned again days later for anti-semitic tweets:

https://www.google.com/search?q=kanye+banned+from+twitter https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+banned+from+twitter

*edit

Ye/Kanye's twitter was locked, not banned.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#74

Post by luckylion »

easrng wrote: post #51
rvz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then do what Gab, Gettr and Truth Social did and 'build your own platform'. If not that, then use a Mastodon instance like mastodon.social as an alternative? The only thing these networks censor is anything that is illegal in their hosted jurisdiction i.e the US.

The fediverse (network of activitypub servers, including mastodon) itself doesn't censor anything at all, but if you don't moderate your instance then other instances might decide to stop federating with you to protect their users.

As far as I understood, they're not doing that on a case-by-case basis, but are using centralized block-lists (which every admin can choose to follow automatically). That's a step up from raw centralized censorship, but it's not a big step.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#75

Post by mrtksn »

smcl wrote: post #71
mrtksn wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like it when it's due to low score, it is an oppression of unpopular opinions. I like it when it's about flagged posts. I have the option enabled to show these posts and I would vouch if there's something worthy in it. So spam and other BS is "removed" but I still can take a look at it and see it for myself. Overall, I think HN is one of the best moderated online places.

So this is unusual to me, because flagging feels more open to abuse than the comment score. Indeed this very thing happened to me recently: - user A says vaguely racist thing - user B calls person out for racist thing - user A cannot downvote a reply, so they flag it instead - making it disappear So both can silence someone, but in one case many people need to disagree with someone and in the other you just need one…

That's where you judge the moderation. The moderation quality defines the community quality.

The good thing about HN is that the moderators are reachable and they do respond intelligently. Unlike AI moderation, you can send an e-mail about it and dang will respond to you and explain why something happen and you can discuss it.

I had my account restricted multiple times and restored once we got on the same page(I don't agree with everything but once I see their point, I can work with it). I had wrongfully flagged comments unflagged by sending them an e-mail too.

It's not perfect but it's pretty good and miles ahead than anything else online.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#76

Post by dd36 »

madeofpalk wrote: post #62
dd36 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. The big one you missed is identity. Most hate is anonymous. Being able to filter by tags like “known racist” or whatever, and seeing someone’s history of sharing misinformation is useful but most people would self-censor if their identity was known or other users would filter out those that won’t identify. What I wonder is what Musk will do if he finds out the scales are artificially weighted towards conservat…

A study showed that people are more aggressive online when using their real name > Results show that in the context of online firestorms, non-anonymous individuals are more aggressive compared to anonymous individuals. This effect is reinforced if selective incentives are present and if aggressors are intrinsically motivated. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

Weird but I still think Elon’s idea of needing confirmed identity for a checkmark is solid. If anonymous users then are nicer than checkmarked users, I guess the filter will work in reverse? The elimination of bots will be nice if they can do it.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#77

Post by smcl »

mrtksn wrote: post #75
smcl wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is unusual to me, because flagging feels more open to abuse than the comment score. Indeed this very thing happened to me recently: - user A says vaguely racist thing - user B calls person out for racist thing - user A cannot downvote a reply, so they flag it instead - making it disappear So both can silence someone, but in one case many people need to disagree with someone and in the other you just need one…

That's where you judge the moderation. The moderation quality defines the community quality. The good thing about HN is that the moderators are reachable and they do respond intelligently. Unlike AI moderation, you can send an e-mail about it and dang will respond to you and explain why something happen and you can discuss it. I had my account restricted multiple times and restored once we got on the same page(I don'…

So in my case the comment didn't desperately need unflagging - someone could wave the comment guidelines in my face and I'd probably concede that such an open confrontation broke at least one. But yeah I guess you can overturn a flagging more easily than being downvoted.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#78

Post by mrtksn »

guerrilla wrote: post #25
hoseja wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably similar to what is currently happening on all the other platforms censoring dissent.

What do you mean? Be a billionaire and buy the platform?

You don't actually need to be a billionaire to have a platform. It helps to quickly own one but you can always build it yourself.

Those who felt censored just created their own social media. Some prominent figures in extreme right community are blue collar workers.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#79

Post by dd36 »

feralfoo wrote: post #73
dd36 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he’s still on Twitter?

Who are you referring to? Both were banned. Ye was allowed back recently and was banned again days later for anti-semitic tweets: https://www.google.com/search?q=kanye+banned+from+twitter https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+banned+from+twitter *edit Ye/Kanye's twitter was locked, not banned.

Kanye was banned? I thought they removed your content if you were banned.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#80

Post by luckylion »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #26

> In a world where conservative opinions are considered to be controversial In my opinion controversy and political incorrectness are Okay. I don't think people should be too concerned about hurting others' feelings when discussing objective phenomena or expressing their own opinion (as long as they acknowledge their subjectivity) . Nevertheless obvious (although not to everyone) absurd, blatant lies and manipulation…

> 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?

Post reply on HN