5 ms·

Twitter banning prominent far right users forces them to mass migrate to parler which ultimately makes parler less attractive to the wider community. On the ot

by sieste 6y ago

Twitter banning prominent far right users forces them to mass migrate to parler which ultimately makes parler less attractive to the wider community. On the other hand parler might only be popular because twitter started banning these people in the first place.

krapp 6y ago
Seems like a win-win to me. Far right users congregate to a niche platform where they can do as they please, and as a result it's easier for everyone else to ignore them.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Yeah, and then they can totally ignore the far left and push Twitter even further over the cliff.
  - shakezula 6y ago
    That’s a real nice straw man you got there.
  - krapp 6y ago
    Being anti-racist isn't a far left position, it's a civilized human being position.
    - jfk13 6y ago
      Not suggesting any sympathy with David Duke, but there's a basic problem with this statement: what is "racist"? The definition depends who you ask, and is constantly in flux. If I say I'm anti-racist, but disagree with you as to what constitutes "racism", which of us is right and which should be banned? Who gets to judge?
      - krapp 6y ago
        >The definition depends who you ask, and is constantly in flux. Saying the term "racist" is "constantly in flux" seems to imply its definition is completely arbitrary, or that no commonly accepted or generally agreed upon definitions exist. Regardless of what else people may say it does or doesn't mean, I think most people would agree that the white supremacist views of David Duke could be considered racist. >If I say I'm anti-racist, but disagree with you as to what constitutes "racism", which of us is right and which should be banned? Who gets to judge? In the specific case, obviously the owner of the platform. Despite what people say (or want to be true) Twitter is not a public space, it's a private platform and its owners can ban whomever they please for whatever reason they want, and that's probably spelled out in their terms of service somewhere. In the more general case, possibly a framework of law, common societal or religious norms and cultural influences, or no one. Truth can't always be determined with absolute certainty when one is dealing with social constructs in the subjective and abstract landscape of modern hyperreality. People can't even agree on the world being round anymore, and it's easier to accept that everything one is told is a lie than attempt to reconcile a complex and fragmented media universe of mutually opposed, violently overlapping magisteria. Obviously, if we can't even agree on what race is, we may not agree on what what racism is, or opposition to it. How do you even do that when some people believe most of the people they pass on the street are holograms in the Matrix? That said, when David Duke talks about "the Jews" and their campaign of "white genocide" or about his desire to live in an all "white" society, it's entirely possible to see what he means in that context and form an opinion accordingly.
      - pcbro141 6y ago
        Let's start with the KKK and David Duke are racist. I don't think any reasonable person questions whether open white supremacists like the KKK are racist, the whole organization is based on racism and white supremacist terrorism.
  - pcbro141 6y ago
    It's not far-left to be against the KKK terrorist group.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      Can you name any Antifa members that Twitter have banned? David Duke isn't even relevant. He's a nobody boogey man.
      - imglorp 6y ago
        I don't know, but it's not far-left to be against fascism, either.
        chrisco255 6y ago
        No but it is clearly far left to take over city blocks, declare autonomous zones, destroy public property, terrorize citizens and public officials, etc. and there's plenty of Antifa sympathizers or supporters on Twitter. There's plenty of moral hazard with the amount of influence and propaganda power that tech companies have today and it's a very corrosive, dangerous, long-term destructive thing that scares me far more than David Duke.
        lipstone 6y ago
        I regularly see promotion and defense of rioting, anti-white racism, and threats of violence from Twitter. Hell, I'll never forget all of the blue check marks saying they wanted to punch that high school Covington kid for literally standing in place with an awkward smirk. Twitter absolutely safe-harbors the extreme left. I think it's the only tech company I would refuse to work for due to their moral failings.
      - pcbro141 6y ago
        I'm sure a lot of the accounts of ISIS members and supporters that Twitter banned weren't "relevant" people either. Still happy they're gone from the platform. David Duke did have tens of thousands of followers and was a head of the KKK terrorist group, so he probably wasn't a complete nobody like you suggest. I'm not tied into white supremacist circles to know how much sway he still has there, but good riddance.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Seems like a win-win to me. Far right users congregate to a niche platform where they can do as they please, and as a result it's easier for everyone else to ignore them. It's a real dilemma: pushing these people to niche platforms limits their ability to spread their hateful ideology, but then those same niche platforms could then become radicalizing cesspits for the few that get sucked into them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting: > Bowers had earlier posted anti-Semitic comments against HIAS (formerly, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) on the online social network Gab.[11][12][13] Dor Hadash[14] had participated in HIAS's National Refugee Shabbat the previous week. Referring to Central American migrant caravans and immigrants, Bowers posted on Gab that "HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I'm going in."[15]
  - krapp 6y ago
    > pushing these people to niche platforms limits their ability to spread their hateful ideology, but then those same niche platforms could then become radicalizing cesspits for the few that get sucked into them. Maybe. But then again they're radicalizing people on the mainstream platforms as well. Of course, if we admit that radicalizing people with hateful ideology is a problem, then we might have to admit the ideology itself is also a problem, and that would suggest that all speech isn't perfectly equal and equally valid relative to all other speech, and that some speech can actually be harmful. We would have to treat different ideas, ideologies and claims differently, and judge their merits on a case by case basis, and allow there to be consequences for harmful speech just as there are consequences for harmful actions, both in society as well as legally. We can't do that in the current political climate, so perhaps the next best thing is to simply reduce the number of people being radicalized as much as possible by not giving racists as big a megaphone as possible.
Shivetya 6y ago
Was he really prominent? I had totally forgotten about him having not seen his name in the news for years. Most of what he was known for happened twenty years ago. Since then a few lame attempts to ride coat tails and pretty much disavowed all the time. What we should be happy about is they have to dig this far off the mainstream to find someone like him.

by sieste 6y ago

krapp 6y ago

Seems like a win-win to me. Far right users congregate to a niche platform where they can do as they please, and as a result it's easier for everyone else to ignore them.

chrisco255 6y ago
Yeah, and then they can totally ignore the far left and push Twitter even further over the cliff.
- shakezula 6y ago
  That’s a real nice straw man you got there.
- krapp 6y ago
  Being anti-racist isn't a far left position, it's a civilized human being position.
  - jfk13 6y ago
    Not suggesting any sympathy with David Duke, but there's a basic problem with this statement: what is "racist"? The definition depends who you ask, and is constantly in flux. If I say I'm anti-racist, but disagree with you as to what constitutes "racism", which of us is right and which should be banned? Who gets to judge?
    - krapp 6y ago
      >The definition depends who you ask, and is constantly in flux. Saying the term "racist" is "constantly in flux" seems to imply its definition is completely arbitrary, or that no commonly accepted or generally agreed upon definitions exist. Regardless of what else people may say it does or doesn't mean, I think most people would agree that the white supremacist views of David Duke could be considered racist. >If I say I'm anti-racist, but disagree with you as to what constitutes "racism", which of us is right and which should be banned? Who gets to judge? In the specific case, obviously the owner of the platform. Despite what people say (or want to be true) Twitter is not a public space, it's a private platform and its owners can ban whomever they please for whatever reason they want, and that's probably spelled out in their terms of service somewhere. In the more general case, possibly a framework of law, common societal or religious norms and cultural influences, or no one. Truth can't always be determined with absolute certainty when one is dealing with social constructs in the subjective and abstract landscape of modern hyperreality. People can't even agree on the world being round anymore, and it's easier to accept that everything one is told is a lie than attempt to reconcile a complex and fragmented media universe of mutually opposed, violently overlapping magisteria. Obviously, if we can't even agree on what race is, we may not agree on what what racism is, or opposition to it. How do you even do that when some people believe most of the people they pass on the street are holograms in the Matrix? That said, when David Duke talks about "the Jews" and their campaign of "white genocide" or about his desire to live in an all "white" society, it's entirely possible to see what he means in that context and form an opinion accordingly.
    - pcbro141 6y ago
      Let's start with the KKK and David Duke are racist. I don't think any reasonable person questions whether open white supremacists like the KKK are racist, the whole organization is based on racism and white supremacist terrorism.
- pcbro141 6y ago
  It's not far-left to be against the KKK terrorist group.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Can you name any Antifa members that Twitter have banned? David Duke isn't even relevant. He's a nobody boogey man.
    - imglorp 6y ago
      I don't know, but it's not far-left to be against fascism, either.
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        No but it is clearly far left to take over city blocks, declare autonomous zones, destroy public property, terrorize citizens and public officials, etc. and there's plenty of Antifa sympathizers or supporters on Twitter. There's plenty of moral hazard with the amount of influence and propaganda power that tech companies have today and it's a very corrosive, dangerous, long-term destructive thing that scares me far more than David Duke.
      - lipstone 6y ago
        I regularly see promotion and defense of rioting, anti-white racism, and threats of violence from Twitter. Hell, I'll never forget all of the blue check marks saying they wanted to punch that high school Covington kid for literally standing in place with an awkward smirk. Twitter absolutely safe-harbors the extreme left. I think it's the only tech company I would refuse to work for due to their moral failings.
    - pcbro141 6y ago
      I'm sure a lot of the accounts of ISIS members and supporters that Twitter banned weren't "relevant" people either. Still happy they're gone from the platform. David Duke did have tens of thousands of followers and was a head of the KKK terrorist group, so he probably wasn't a complete nobody like you suggest. I'm not tied into white supremacist circles to know how much sway he still has there, but good riddance.
ardy42 6y ago
> Seems like a win-win to me. Far right users congregate to a niche platform where they can do as they please, and as a result it's easier for everyone else to ignore them. It's a real dilemma: pushing these people to niche platforms limits their ability to spread their hateful ideology, but then those same niche platforms could then become radicalizing cesspits for the few that get sucked into them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting: > Bowers had earlier posted anti-Semitic comments against HIAS (formerly, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) on the online social network Gab.[11][12][13] Dor Hadash[14] had participated in HIAS's National Refugee Shabbat the previous week. Referring to Central American migrant caravans and immigrants, Bowers posted on Gab that "HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I'm going in."[15]
- krapp 6y ago
  > pushing these people to niche platforms limits their ability to spread their hateful ideology, but then those same niche platforms could then become radicalizing cesspits for the few that get sucked into them. Maybe. But then again they're radicalizing people on the mainstream platforms as well. Of course, if we admit that radicalizing people with hateful ideology is a problem, then we might have to admit the ideology itself is also a problem, and that would suggest that all speech isn't perfectly equal and equally valid relative to all other speech, and that some speech can actually be harmful. We would have to treat different ideas, ideologies and claims differently, and judge their merits on a case by case basis, and allow there to be consequences for harmful speech just as there are consequences for harmful actions, both in society as well as legally. We can't do that in the current political climate, so perhaps the next best thing is to simply reduce the number of people being radicalized as much as possible by not giving racists as big a megaphone as possible.

Shivetya 6y ago

Was he really prominent? I had totally forgotten about him having not seen his name in the news for years. Most of what he was known for happened twenty years ago. Since then a few lame attempts to ride coat tails and pretty much disavowed all the time. What we should be happy about is they have to dig this far off the mainstream to find someone like him.