18 ms·
Wow, is this the great purge? I don’t support certain people, but man I don’t think this is going to end well. This censorship just seems crazy to me.
by post_break 6y ago
Wow, is this the great purge? I don’t support certain people, but man I don’t think this is going to end well. This censorship just seems crazy to me.
- valuearb 6y agoIt’s not censorship, private businesses have the right to decide what they sell in their stores. Parlour can still distribute itself as a web app, no problem.
- Blikkentrekker 6y agoThen it's still censorship; private businesses simply have the right to censor.
- criddell 6y agoIf you’re going to call it censorship if Walmart refuses to sell a product I make, then you are really watering down what that word means.
- valuearb 6y agoNope. Censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. A private business not distributing a product because it doesn’t represent their or their customers values isn’t censorship, it’s a marketing decision. If Walmart decides to stop carrying Coke because of its sugar content, is that “censorship”? If a girl decides not to date you, is that censorship of your free speech rights to bore her? The advocates for Parlours right of distribution don’t actually believe in individual rights, or they would argue it has to be imposed on the App Stores.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago> Censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. And this was indeed done because it was considered politically unacceptable and a threat to security. > A private business not distributing a product because it doesn’t represent their or their customers values isn’t censorship, it’s a marketing decision. The problem is your thinking that those two are some exclusionary. The censorship that most company practice is of course for financial gain. > The advocates for Parlours right of distribution don’t actually believe in individual rights, or they would argue it has to be imposed on the App Stores. Nor does their believing in free speech or not have anything to do with whether this is censorship.
- throwaway54095 6y agoSo then, can a restaurant refuse service, to filter what kind of customers would allow to let in, let's say on criterias like: only men, only white people, everybody but gay people? It's a private business after all. Especially if they are still available to deliver without any filter.
- valuearb 6y agoIs this a cannibalistic restaurant? Are they serving customers other customers? What does discretion in the products a restaurant sells have to do with the customers it sells to? Whataboutisms galore.
- playtriot 6y agoThis is it, the great purge. Be sure to pick up on of my official, Trump-endorsed anti-purge kits! Available for a limited time on Wetsy (etsy for the incontinent). The kit contains zip ties, 9mm ammo, GI Joe halloween costume and an extra large tub of spray tan. Remember, social media can't censor us if we all look and dress and talk exactly the same. Stay vigilant heroes!
- roberto 6y agoIt's not censorship, it's free market. These are private companies.
- systemvoltage 6y agoAren't these conservative principles? Like Gov shouldn't have any business in private company's affairs?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Barrin92 6y agoIt was until liberals started to run big businesses, that wasn't supposed to happen, so now companies engaging in freedom of association is actually socialism. Those hippies and nerds weren't supposed to run the show
- osgovernment 6y agoPartially, regulation is one thing but being able to kick someone out of your establishment is also part of the law that has been upheld by the Supreme Court and in the constitution. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of communication platforms on the Internet. If Twitter was the only communication platform, then I would be very upset about this decision. There are some companies that I do not think should be allowed to ban people, like ISPs.. since many times people don't have choices between multiple high-speed ISPs. However, Twitter is not in that same category.
- systemvoltage 6y agoOk, so ISP's shouldn't ban people but they're allowed to be monopolies in the first place!? Internet and critical infrastructure is not considered utilities, let private enterprise take care of the most important connection to the outside world - the internet. What could go wrong!? Note clearly - I am not condoning ISPs banning people. I am highlighting the hypocracy in a lot of contemporary conservative principles. It's not the Lincoln party we know of.
- andy_ppp 6y agoI’m going to lend your neighbours a huge sound system so they can use their free speech to play the darkest industrial techno outside your door at 4am. I’m obviously joking, but would it be okay for me to use my platform this way? If not, why not?
- Mountain_Skies 6y agoOr you could simply not install Parler.
- d3nj4l 6y agoUntil people whose brains have been melted by Parler influencers start calling you with death threats because they believe you’re a treasonous antifa instigator.
- ccleve 6y agoNo one is forcing you to listen to Parler.
- bun_at_work 6y agoNo one is forcing you to install parler from the Play Store either.
- viro 6y agoHave you been on the Donald. Win lately? At what point are we allowed to stop people from planning treason?
- mixedCase 6y agoThis is a strange comment to make, are you making an investigation of sorts or do you frequently go on websites of people you politically despise?
- nathankunicki 6y agoYes, I do. To live in a bubble and not expose yourself to things you don't like is to live a life of blissful ignorance. That may work for you, but I like to be educated and have insight.
- dekhn 6y agoI read Breitbart and the comments for that exact reason. It's pretty illuminating.
- mlyle 6y agoDo you only read things you agree with?
- mhh__ 6y ago> frequently go on websites of people you politically despise This is why I browse (some threads on) HN
- Asparagirl 6y agoYup, I purposely follow some blogs and Twitter accounts of awful people, to see what they're up to. Keep your friends close, and...
- adamsea 6y agoAgreed. A lot of folk on HN right now are having difficulty identifying or naming treason and sedition.
- vimy 6y agoLooks like it. - Twitter has suspended both General Michael Flynn, President Trump's first National Security Adviser, and attorney Sidney Powell. Also less know users. - Twitch and Snapchat disabled Trump's accounts. - Shopify took down two online stores affiliated with the president. - YouTube says it's accelerating its enforcement of voter fraud claims against President Trump and others based on Wednesday's events. - TheDonald.win lost a host (but has backups) - Facebook has banned Brandon Straka and removed his #WalkAway campaign on the site, an initiative consisting of over half a million users. Edit: Not sure why a list of facts is being downvoted?
- ogre_codes 6y agoThe ways to profit from Trump are shrinking and the chances his vindictive actions can affect companies have vanished. So there is no longer a good reasons to associate with his toxic brand. Companies can virtue signal with little to no repercussions now.
- bun_at_work 6y agoIt looks like the whole thread is being brigaded.
- danijelb 6y agoWhat is the alternative? Do you think that the government should nationalize private companies? Or perhaps they should dictate to them who should be their clients? If a company like Google doesn't want to do business with Parler, that is their right. That is free market. If the market didn't agree with it, the free market forces would make sure that Google dwindles and another company replaces them.
- ng12 6y agoGoogle and Apple have a duopoly. In the wake of 2016 we collectively agreed that Big Tech has the ability to influence elections, now is the time to think about how to protect our democracy. My take is simple: either treat social media conglomerates like we do telecom or break them up like we did AT&T.
- danijelb 6y agoI agree with breaking up companies which are monopolies/duopolies. But why do you think that those broken up companies wouldn't behave the same in this case (ban Trump, Parler, etc). If that's what the majority of users want, then such decisions increase their profit. If there was 5 mobile OS/store companies today, I'm pretty sure the same would happen on all 5.
- ng12 6y agoI agree, it's probably wishful thinking. My hope would be that "we don't ban anything that's not explicitly illegal" would be a profitable stance for at least one of the competing app stores.
- bun_at_work 6y agoIf that's what the majority of their users want, why shouldn't they ban those services? What better proxy is there for what they should do? Aren't they beholden to their users and shareholders? Is the suggestion that all platforms have to cater to the most vocal minority? That doesn't seem like a good strategy.
- cabaalis 6y agoNever let a good crisis go to waste. I think we are seeing the beginning of a purge of a certain line of thought from the internet, using a few crazy people as the catalyst.
- rodgerd 6y agoCould you explain exactly what that line of thinking is, and why you're troubled by this?
- cabaalis 6y agoPrimarily right-wing apps, websites, subreddits, communities. I'm afraid there will be attempts to cite some kind of complicity and ban them. I'm troubled by it because right-wing != violent, and 74 million people voted for the republican candidate. Continuing to disenfranchise their speech options will not go well.
- PurpleFoxy 6y agoIt’s not platforms fault that certain communities are much more likely to violate basic rules. If reddit creates a rule stating “do not threaten or advocate for violence” and in the process of enforcing that rule they find out that certain groups are disproportionately affected, should they continue equally apply the rule or should they start tallying things up to make sure they ban equal amounts of each group?
- criddell 6y agoHow do you reconcile that Google News still caries New Republic and The New American and lots of other Conservative publications. They don’t seem anti-conservative, just anti-extremist.
- vmception 6y agoI don't care about private sector censorship, that is free speech in line with our constitutional ideals. Your freedom to not listen or associate with someone is part of the First Amendment and applies to corporations as much as it applies to you. People get to say or not say whatever they want, you get to listen or not listen to whoever you want. A corporation you have chosen to rely on still gets to choose they want to associate with, arbitrarily even. When the corporation messes up, we can try pressuring them into compliance with our ideals. What the corporation did is in compliance with my ideals. Good luck with yours.
- nathankunicki 6y agoNewspapers and magazines have always had a choice who or what to print in their papers. TV and radio stations have always had a choice who or what to air. Why shouldn't social media companies have the same liberties?
- ralph84 6y agoSocial media companies are protected by Section 230 while newspapers and magazines aren't. If social media companies are going to act like newspapers and magazines then they shouldn't be shielded from liability for their content.
- nathankunicki 6y agoWhich is a fair comment to make, but ultimately without the protection of Section 230, Twitter or Facebook would have never allowed Trump on the platform in the first place. The risk of being held accountable (ie. lawsuits, defamation suits, etc) for the content he posted would have been too great. Removing Section 230 wouldn't have the effect people like to think it would.
- lovecg 6y agoSo in other words you want them to remove even more content (no one wants to be held liable for Trump’s tweets)? Sounds pro-censorship to me.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoOnline newspapers and magazines frequently allow comments from readers, and they are absolutely protected by section 230 for the same reason that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are.
- drtillberg 6y agoThere was no "network effect" deterring me from dropping the NYT. These social media platforms, and the internet in general-- which are entirely "private"-- are the new public square. Twitter, Facebook, et al just excluded leading conservative voices from the public square.
- wankerrific 6y agoThis is less “censorship” and more “ending a business relationship” which Google is certainly able to do.
- djsumdog 6y agoThe purge has been happening for years. I hate how people on HN is praising this. There are literally few alternatives for the average person apart from Google and eyeProducts. I have a PinePhone, but what percentage of America can truly put in the effort to use one? <1%. If you cannot install an run your own software on a device, you do not own the device. You cannot praise the removal of Gab or Parlor now and complain later when they take everything else from you. They can increase the Apple developer fees whenever they want. What happens when they start charging you $2,000 a year or $4,000 a year for the right to publish apps? What happens when the two big platforms decide no one can push an app unless their platform has full moderation. What happens when Google and Apple, for your safety, say all user contributed content must go through their "spam" filter first for any apps? This is horrific. You may not like Parlor, but it will not stop here. This is a dangerous place we are in and we should all be horrified by it. People are horrified right now, but they're focused on the wrong thing.
- chrispeel 6y agoNonsense This is the free market in action. No one is forcing Google or Twitter or FB to do anything; I think they've been very restrained. The libertarians should be happy that it's commercial companies shutting Parler down and not govt. It's only when the president incites violence in an attempt retain power that these commercial entities acted.
- ptero 6y agoOnce a company is so big that its refusal to support a small business is a major hit, that company cannot operate in a wild west style. That's why most countries have anti-monopoly laws; and it's long past the time when those laws should have been applied to google.
- chrispeel 6y agoIn case you didn't notice, there are already anti-trust lawsuits against Google; I'm happy that such inspection of big tech is happening. Even so, that's a separate issue
- iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y agoA lot of pedants are telling you it's not censorship and they are technically correct, these private platforms are within their rights to decide how they are used. And many people have raised concerns before about what it means that we've given so much power to these platforms. I hope this goes down as the time the big platforms overplayed their hand and made people realise that even though we have turned over so much power to them, they do not have the same constraints or responsibilities as government, and as private businesses can act arbitrarily according to their prerogative.
- malwarebytess 6y agoWhile they may be pedants, I am anally right. On a personal level I think those who chime in to cry that it's not censorship are myopic fools. It is absolutely censorship. It's textbook, dictionary, censorship. Take wikipedia's great opening paragraph: >Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. In my opinion it's especially egreoious, requiring remedy, if the censorious actor has a large amount of control over a medium of communication. In this case google dwarfs perhaps governments.
- iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y agoRight, it's censorship, it's not first amendment limitation of free speech, I think that is where the semantics come in.
- hndudette2 6y ago> telling you it's not censorship and they are technically correct No, they are technically incorrect. As other posters have pointed out, it literally is censorship. Whether a private company or government is doing it is irrelevant to the definition of that term.
- anonacct38 6y agoIf wal-mart stops selling a brand of ice cream, is that censorship? Is it censorship that wal-mart doesn't sell playboy in their store? If not, then why is the removal of an app from the app store censorship? The world wide web still exists. Parler is still on the internet. Seems like there should be some acknowledgement that there's a difference between refusing to actively participate in distributing content and censorship.
- dilap 6y agoI think a better analogy is saying, oh, you've banned newspapers, but who cares, you can still talk to people in person. Which is to say, it's true, & that's a good thing, but that doesn't mean that the censorship itself isn't bad. The most effective, most powerful communication medium that exists right now is native apps for social networks on smartphones. If 100% of that medium is controlled and censored by two companies, that means those two companies exert a massive influence on what kinds of communication society as a whole will have. If you believe in the general principle of free speech (not just strict legal interpretations of say the 1A), that's not a good thing.
- ibejoeb 6y ago> you can still talk to people in person That's practically illegal now, too. What a time to be alive...
- russianbandit 6y agoEvil genius! Move to ban in person communication, control all the virtual communication mediums.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoCan’t tell if you are joking or if you really believe this.
- chrispeel 6y agoNonsense. The better analogy is that the newspaper has banned certain people who have written articles inciting violence. Or maybe an even better analogy: the movie theater has taken the microphone away from the person telling those in the crowded movie theater to start punching each other.
- mumblemumble 6y agoThis decision, in and of itself, doesn't seem particularly unprecedented or untoward to me. Every store, including the Google Play Store, has a right to choose what products it wants to carry, for pretty much any reason whatsoever, including for political reasons. It's probably pretty difficult to find copies of The Turner Diaries in your local Barnes and Noble, and I'd be even more surprised to find a copy of The Vagina Monologues in a Lifeway. What makes this scary is not that stores are choosing what products to sell. What makes it scary is that, at least in this segment of the economy, there are exactly two stores, and picking at least one of them to shop at is very nearly a precondition for participating in modern society. This gives Google and Apple a degree of influence over peoples' lives that one could quite reasonably recognize as quasi-governmental, and that is worrisome.
- seebetter 6y agoNatural rights existed all governments all religions and all systems. Create a system that diminishes natural rights and by the Organic Law, it is our duty to alter or abolish such systems.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mxcrossb 6y agoI own a kindle fire tablet. I wanted to use an app from a competing service, but alas it wasn’t in the Amazon App Store. No problem though, I installed the google store on my tablet, and downloaded it. Side loading would have also worked. Isn’t this what android users have boasted of for so long to apple fans? There isn’t only one store. In the case of Parlor, you can probably just use a browser even.
- rrose 6y agoI seriously can't identify with this viewpoint. There's no censorship here- parler still exists, people are still free to share their (abhorrent) viewpoints there, Google is just choosing not to amplify the voices of people that have proven themselves capable of and prone to violence. All the pearl-clutching over free speech is totally overblown.
- johndevor 6y agoSure, people technically have free speech. But not in any meaningful sense. It's like trying to have a debate when the other side has a megaphone.
- valuearb 6y agoIt only feels like a megaphone when most people disagree with you. And the web is the real megaphone, and it’s still unlimited.
- stjohnswarts 6y agoGo to China, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia and insult the leader(s) of the country on the internet and see how long you last. That is why we're different.
- bun_at_work 6y agoThis is accurate. Just because you have to go directly to the website doesn't mean it's censored. Google, Apple, FB, Twitter, etc are not in the business of supporting outlier extremism in our society. Claiming censorship because they don't want to platform that stuff is ridiculous. Imagine a Jewish-owned store being forced to sell nazi paraphernalia because not selling it is censorship. The users of parler or gab are just mad these huge companies are taking a stand. Engaging with their tantrum only gives them a platform, even if it's just a small personal one, and is clearly bad. Do we argue with crazies on the street yelling "The end is nigh!" every day? No.
- systemvoltage 6y agoOr it dismantles the way they will organize with weapons to the next destination they seem unworthy of Trumpism. Could be a place like the U.S. Capitol.
- ashtonkem 6y agoTurns out planning a coup in plain site is a step too far, and has consequences. Who could have possibly predicted it?
- driverdan 6y agoHave you bothered to look at the content on Parler? It's full of speech that is not protected by the US 1st, such as threats to kill political leaders and eminent calls for violence. There are also tons of neo-Nazis calling for the deaths of Jews and other minorities. Parler need to remove this content. This isn't Google and Apple censoring political views. It's a demand for Parler to remove illegal content.
- PHGamer 6y agowhat is illegal content? trump was telling protesters to go home the day of but they cancelled his account.
- soupson 6y agoThe website is still accessible, right?
- neogodless 6y agoA brief history of the Trump movement: 1. Trump is a popular public figure that has been tweeting against Democrats for the past decade. 2. Trump runs for office, and immediately starts calling into question mainstream media and election integrity. 3. Trump wins the election, and his voters accept his premise that the media cannot be trusted. They turn to him as their sole voice of reason. 4. Given that they believe everything spoon fed to them by Trump, they cannot accept alternatives. 5. The voice of Trump is amplified by his followers across the internet (and this is aided by complicit Republican in and out of government.) 6. When Trump wins, they believe that he won the election. When he loses, they cannot accept it and instead choose to believe the word of Trump. Should this voice of Trump be forced by the U.S. government to be supported by every public and private corporation to continue the Trump movement? Would drowning out all other media and sources of information be the ideal way forward for the United States?
- tonetheman 6y agoNo it is not crazy when the platforms have active terrorist organizations planning an attack (the upcoming biden event). It is a clear and present danger.
- stjohnswarts 6y agoI think it's wonderful. Push them to the edges where they belong. Let them make their own platform to spread lies and hate, it will make them easier to find. They are going to commit acts of hate and ignorance with or without general platforms, why let it reach the mainstream. Make those who drift towards it work for it. Google is well within their rights as a company to do it.
- bromuro 6y agoI share your feeling “this is not going well”. Most of the comments here seem polarized and emotionally driven - yet these censorships are worrying even if they look like the right thing to do.
- kumarvvr 6y agoI can understand the viewpoint you have, though I don't agree with it. Radical ideas have always looked for ways to spread around and influence people. As in with any idea, there are good ones (Why should a worker not have paid holidays, or days off, or have work life balance, education rights, voting rights, etc) and bad ones (the ones we see espoused by many radical right wingers like the claimed inferiority of the black race and the superiority of the white race) Now, 74 million Americans voted for a vision of trump, that mixes a lot of good ideas with some very terrible ones. And out of the 74 million voters for him, I am sure many of them voted for the promise of jobs, stability, incomes, etc. Unfortunately, a significant & vocal minority of his supporters have shown hard right and often immoral ideas. In the past, messaging and reach was a carefully cultivated art practiced by seasoned politicians and ideologists. Today, the situation is different. It is very very easy to gather people into a group, isolate them and radicalize them. You see it happening everyday on the social media. What, then, is the solution to this? It is a problem because a society must be coherent and move forward together, otherwise it fractures and implodes from within. For a society, there are many aspects that affect it's prosperity. Jobs, distribution of wealth, prevalence of opportunities, justice, etc. If you have allow one small section of ideologues hijack the conversation and demand for continuation of radicalization, that society will collapse. Just think about Nazism, Stalinism, etc. All those societies had one thing in common, the ability to radicalize and brainwash population. So what about Parler? Banning is the right thing to do. Out of those 74 million who voted, they have avenues like FB, Twitter, IG, etc to engage and communicate. That small group who wants to radicalize the society, have their voices cut off, and that is how it should be.
- bun_at_work 6y agoThis is pretty well put. I definitely agree with your points here. I would like to point out that Nazism and Stalinism are localized versions of the same thing: fascism. trump is the current leader of American Fascism. He should have his voice on major platforms cut off. What people don't seem to realize about democracy is that fascism is the weak point.
- bluescrn 6y agoIf you're only exposed to left-wing media, you only see right-wing radicalisation. If you're only exposed to right-wing media, you only see left-wing radicalisation. Both tribes are convinced that the other is dangerously radical.
- namesbc 6y agoThe country went down this path as soon as the Senate refused to convict Trump. We are now at the point where we have to block violent fascists from organizing the overthrow of our democracy, and that requires deplatforming. We had a peaceful resolution to this in February of 2020, but the GOP chose this path instead.
- akhilcacharya 6y agoTo be clear, we had another peaceful resolution to this on November 3rd, but unfortunately the President refuses or at best refused to accept this.
- namesbc 6y agoTrump has been warning us since the beginning that he wouldn't accept a loss, and instead take the country down with him. I think most of us didn't fully realize until this week the consequences of not conceding would be this bad.
- Taurenking 6y agoConvict him of what exactly?
- namesbc 6y agoRead the impeachment papers
- ogre_codes 6y agoI don't know about Google, but Apple just told them they needed to moderate speech which incites violence (and maybe hate speech?). This isn't remotely like China where they are censoring people who post images of a stuffed bear with a vague resemblance to Trump.
- endori97 6y agoThe set of topics that gets you de-platformed (or financially de-platformed) is increasing.
- rasz 6y agohttps://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/threats-of-violence-against-individuals https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/t... "true threat" is where you have actual proof those threats arent empty rhetoric, like you know, people shouting about overthrowing the government and then storming Parliament while armed, with resulting causalities.
- Darling_007 6y agoNeither do I but frankly it doesn't matter. People don't have what it takes to listen, to speak up, or to just stop bein idiots. They only see part of the painting, they don't see the big picture.