961–970 of 1001 posts
We ought to remember that in the Capitol they found hidden IED pipe bombs. They were not afraid to kill public figures as was the intent online.
The sweeping reactions is because what was said online actually panned out. If this was predominantly Muslim or black community instead of Trump supporters, it would have been a much bigger uproar.
I’ve said it before: I find this highly disturbing. Especially the sense in which it is coordinated. Amazon, Google and Apple acting together to shut down a platform that has been very clear about its stance on content moderation from the outset. Free speech is not just any value. Sooner or later you will find yourself on the side of an issue where your speech will be attacked. Then there is the always present double…
That sounds like a consistent standard, and effective moderation, does it not?
Twitter was willing and able to shut down a credible, widespread incitement to violence. Parler was not.
If you are a hardliner about free speech, you are fash. If you are conservative, you are fash-proximate.
I'm just going to come out and say something that I've had a hard self reflective time coming to the conclusion of. I don't believe in free speech without limits. I have strongly felt that the actions taken by these companies is morally and ethically the right thing to do, for any business and that is inconsistent with believing in true free speech. My line for free speech seems to lie in speech that incites violence…
I have not yet concluded whether I believe in free speech without limits, but I can at least say with confidence the following: - Freedom of speech is of extremely high importance for any free society and should not be taken for granted - Removing it in any capacity should be done with extreme care and free of any bias one way or another, with a lot of thought put into any future consequences - Speech without a platf…
Sure, they feel persecuted for the deplatforming but that's not really reasonable - we know there's less reason in their community than there needs to be (well it's reasoning based on a funnel of lies they've been manipulated with over decades via Fox News, Republican party, etc), but it wasn't their toy to begin with - the other big kids/adults/tech companies were just happy to let them use them, so they don't have the right to having access to the toys that aren't theirs - and it's unhealthy to make them believe they do, which is essentially coddling for purpose of trying to stop them from crying or ending their temper tantrum - but then it prevents them from developing boundaries.
This is a complex situation, it will unfold how it does, I just hope current leadership is adequate and that forces that can be mobilized if necessary are adequately trained to try to reduce the loss of life if the uprising continues - or arguably terrorist acts - due to disbelieving that the election was fair, hypocritically it would be considered fair if their choice won.
It is my feeling the combined action to de-platform Trump including de-platforming Parler is foolish and very likely to escalate the tensions, not defuse them, e.g. increase the likelihood of Bad Things Happening That I Won't Explicitly Detail Because I Don't Want To Be De-Platformed For Writing About Stuff That Should Perfectly Obvious To People That Pay Attention To History.
Millions of people were moving onto Parler because TheDonald and a number of well known commentators told them to go there to avoid censorship. Subsequent to shutting Trump out of public social media over what could understandably be construed as a bogus rationale of censorship (especially if one believes the elections were fraudulent), BigTechBogeyPersons collude to shut everyone out of Trump's replacement platform, (and potentially any future option). That's what literally millions of American people perceive. My messaging is buzzing with non-tech people who are afraid the apocalypse is now and asking me what to do, what's going to happen, etc. People are asking me what to do about it!
The blowback potential is off the charts. The chilling effect is over the top. There's plenty of American people personally affected. They are frightened and/or outraged by this outcome. Plenty of people who immigrated to the US from non-free countries have drawn conclusions from this that are quite different from the virtuous and self-righteous moralizing I see commonly proposed here on HN and by "acceptable" social media sources.
The commenter who suggested this would be perceived as a "casus belli" probably hit the nail on the head.
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'm just going to come out and say something that I've had a hard self reflective time coming to the conclusion of. I don't believe in free speech without limits. I have strongly felt that the actions taken by these companies is morally and ethically the right thing to do, for any business and that is inconsistent with believing in true free speech. My line for free speech seems to lie in speech that incites violence…
I have not yet concluded whether I believe in free speech without limits, but I can at least say with confidence the following: - Freedom of speech is of extremely high importance for any free society and should not be taken for granted - Removing it in any capacity should be done with extreme care and free of any bias one way or another, with a lot of thought put into any future consequences - Speech without a platf…
You don't expect coal companies to suspend operations because of pollution and climate change. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "should" here. Care to clarify?
I'm having a real hard time understanding how all the comments in the thread are in favor of this. I mean, even if you disagree with the idea of Parler, how can one willingly support this kind of censorship? "First they came for the XYZ and I didn't care because I wasn't XYZ, then they came for the ..., and then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me"
If someone posts "Hang Mike Pence" on Erik's Bakeshop Blog in the comments, would you have a law that says I have to leave it up?
What if it's Erik's Bakeshop Blog Network, Home of All Ten of the Most Popular Bakeshop Blogs? Anyone who is Anyone in the Bakeshop Community has a Presence on the EBB Network.
Would you then require me to keep those comments up? Because not having access to the EBBN is professional suicide for a bakeshop professional? Because I'm "ruining lives"? How do you write that law?
Or can I take them down, but I have to continue to allow MagaBakerBabe post, and I am just required to spend money paying content moderators to monitor what they are posting?
I am genuinely curious, from a legal perspective, what is the alternative to "Corporations are allowed to ban people for whatever reason they like, except membership to a protected class"?
Or are we not talking about laws at all, are we saying Google is free to ban whoever they like, but it's Bad, and we're just issuing a strongly worded rebuke here, and we would prefer that anyone with a Blog Network considers the free speech implications of deplatforming users like MagaBakerBabe?
I'm not a huge fan of Parler, but hopefully this move pushes the government to force Apple to allow alternate App stores and/or side loading. People should be able to run Parler on their phone if they want to, with full API access, not the half-measures that having a web app allow.
I'm just going to come out and say something that I've had a hard self reflective time coming to the conclusion of. I don't believe in free speech without limits. I have strongly felt that the actions taken by these companies is morally and ethically the right thing to do, for any business and that is inconsistent with believing in true free speech. My line for free speech seems to lie in speech that incites violence…