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

81–90 of 939 posts

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#81

Post by madeofpalk »

dd36 wrote: post #76
madeofpalk wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Requiring validated identity is anti free speech.

There's been so many words spilled online about how terrible of an idea it is to require confirmed identities for online.

Recently, see https://twitter.com/mmasnick/status/1576274615231401984 or more casually https://www.garbageday.email/p/oh-cool-were-talking-about-an...

> Generally, if your solution is virtually indistinguishable from one of the systems the Chines government is using to keep people in line, your solution is bad.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#82

Post by tsol »

danuker wrote: post #36
impowski wrote: post #19

I mean you can say “men are trash”, “white people are trash” and so on, but at the same time you are not allowed to say anything against jewish people or other people? Isn’t it kinda hypocritical? Maybe we should not allow toxic behavior at all and have a civil discourse about someone is feeling towards some group of people to allow him to change his mind? Personal attacks and hatred will not do any good this will on…

On one hand, there should ideally be no discrimination. So, hate speech directed even at white males should be disallowed. On the other hand, society resolved through politics (such as Affirmative Action) that the compound interest and lasting synergistic effects of historical discrimination should be compensated for somewhat. The only way to do that is through more discrimination (i.e. relatively penalizing the leas…

>The only way to do that is through more discrimination (i.e. relatively penalizing the least historically discriminated-against people).

Which is done by creating opportunities for historically discriminated groups, not blindly handicapping white people for being white. I'm not white, but it's really worrying to me that that's allowed. Today it's them, tomorrow it's me, then it's you.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#83

Post by luckylion »

dd36 wrote: post #44
brutusborn wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of ideas? I guess if you go far enough left then everything is to your right.

Communism, socialism, ending capitalism, etc. Just look at European politics.

Where on e.g. Twitter or Reddit would that be disallowed? Isn't r/antiwork/ hitting the front page regularly?

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#84

Post by tlb »

tgv wrote: post #34
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…

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…

A platform that hosted both objectionable speech and regular speech together might be tolerable to read. But the most of the regular speech ends up on popular platforms than ban objectionable speech, so the free-speech sites are left with mostly the objectionable stuff, which makes them pretty unpleasant to read.

It makes it hard to start a new platform. People start free-speech platforms with good intentions of having open debate about controversial topics. But they quickly get overrun by hate mongers and trolls, and become too noxious for most people to read. Intentional or not, it's a good strategy by the existing platforms to kick out the nasty people, ensuring that they're first to sign up for every new social network.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#85

Post by dd36 »

guerrilla wrote: post #57
brutusborn wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of ideas? I guess if you go far enough left then everything is to your right.

I mean they were literally persecuted by the United States itself, which the right has never been. McArthyism, blacklisting, banning, COINTELPRO and the most enormous propaganda campaigns in history since WWII. The US went to war with leftists and eradicated them, which is why European (and generally global) politics looks so different as many of those places didn't have such direct oppression.

Yes, the news recently that the FBI monitored Aretha Franklin?!?

The same powerful people that targeted socialists or civil rights leaders also influenced or even owned the media. It’s almost like the internet, at least early on, kind of broke that grip, and the rise of hard right media funded by billionaires with social media promotion weapons/bots/coordination is a response to that.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#86

Post by feralfoo »

dd36 wrote: post #79
feralfoo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep just clarified, restricted/locked, not banned.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#87

Post by mrtksn »

piva00 wrote: post #72
mrtksn wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I agree that we can't have a perfect solution but let's loose a good solution in the pursuit of a perfect one and I think there can be a good solution by implementing some of the real world social dynamics into the virtual one.

Jerks and BS artist are nothing new but in real world we do have some tools to deal with them. IMHO, changing how some things work can create an atmosphere of healthy interactions.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#88

Post by qwerty456127 »

luckylion wrote: post #80
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?

These are opinions. And I lean to agreeing with them (except I don't think anybody knows a good solution to the problem). Blatant lies/absurd are things like all (or almost all) people of specific race are inherently evil or stupid, they control the state for their wicked aims and there is a gene for specific preferences which ought to be eradicated or we are doomed.

Re: Kanye West is buying Parler

#90

Post by dd36 »

tsol wrote: post #64
dd36 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know my left wing friends would claim the media still is right wing and truly left wing ideas are disallowed. It may be that the left wing was censored and vilified for so long that it ceased existing in the US.

The news media maybe. But watching tv, surfing the web, etc the majority generally sides with the liberal status quo of our times. It's rare to see genuine positive religious sentiment in media compared to real life, and it's very obvious to me

But isn’t that an indication that truly free peoples are less religious as opposed to a conspiracy? My whole life there have been religious cable news shows. If they were extremely popular, they’d air on prime time or their content would be shared more on social media. It’s not being blocked.
Post reply on HN