4 ms·

I seriously can't identify with this viewpoint. There's no censorship here- parler still exists, people are still free to share their (abhorrent) viewpoints the

by rrose 6y ago

I 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 ago
Sure, 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 ago
  It 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 ago
  Go 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 ago
This 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 ago
  Or 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.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Huh? Last time I checked, BLM app ( https://apps.apple.com/us/app/black-lives-matter/id955318790 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/black-lives-matter/id955318790 ) is on Apple store and the group has, among other notable events, burning Kenosha done on their bucket list. Google, Apple, FB, Twitter et al have zero issues supporting violence as long it supports a given side. I don't buy the analogy ( mostly because most analogies are crap ). Normal people try thought experiments and use the same situations and change one critical piece of information to see how it affects the model.
  - bun_at_work 6y ago
    I didn't say anything about the BLM app. Don't know why you're bringing that up, other than to strawman, but hey, that's what they do.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      It is not a strawman. I introduced BLM specifically, because, just like not all Trump voters are violent, I am sure some are. BLM is just another side of the coin in my view. They are a group, who had instances of violent behaviors ( see 'fiery but mostly peaceful' CNN clip for reference ) during the past year(s?).
  - rrose 6y ago
    youre mischaracterizing BLM. Parler posts were actively calling for violence and government overthrow. The mob at the capitol set up a gallows and were carrying handcuffs. To the (limited) extent that BLM protests turned violent, it was the result of situations on the ground getting out of hand, not planned in advance or incited by leadership. (Also, much of it was the result of aggression by police). There's certainly room for valid criticism of aspects of BLM protests but they are not at all comparable to the insurrection at the capitol this week.
ccleve 6y ago
It is censorship when those preventing freedom of speech are monopolies. When a small number of companies make it difficult to communicate via our main communication device, and there are no viable alternatives, then a fundamental right is being suppressed. There is no marketplace of ideas when there is no marketplace,
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Please point to where in the Constitutions that it says you have a right to post on twitter and facebook or put an app on a webstore?
  - _-david-_ 6y ago
    There is a difference between legal/constitutional freedom of speech and freedom of speech in a cultural perspective.
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
This is my view. These sites aren't censoring anybody- they're choosing not to amplify.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Yep and leave section 230 alone as well.
agiroth 6y ago
It's important to distinguish that "not deleting something" is NOT the same as amplifying it. Amplifying it would be pasting images and links to Parler all over the Google Play splash page and all over the Google Play website, sending emails to all its gmail users to download Parler, or inserting Parler ads into some % of its ad impressions. They aren't doing that. "Leave it alone" is not the same thing as amplification, that's literally the distinction that is made in Section 230. The ONLY thing being asked for is that Parler polices itself (or the authorities get involved where appropriate), and that Google and Apple leave it be because all they do is serve as the conduit to get it onto the device they control. That is the way the world SHOULD work. No it doesn't give you the adrenaline rush of enforcing your desires on the world, but that's not a good thing to be enabling in the first place. If they had no control over the stores used to get apps on devices, the whole question would be moot. Their duopoly leads to this issue. Frankly, that control should be taken away.
- rrose 6y ago
  not deleting something allows it to be shared, or at least show up in search results. it allows it to be seen by people who otherwise would not see it- this is amplification.
  - agiroth 6y ago
    Absolutely but the platform isn't doing the amplification, people do. This is the same thing as someone copying your chant on a street in front of a courthouse. The street isn't doing the amplifying, the people are.
Izkata 6y ago
> There's no censorship here- parler still exists, people are still free to share their (abhorrent) viewpoints there People are calling for AWS to drop Parler, and Parler has already come out and said if this happens, then Parler itself is gone forever.
- rrose 6y ago
  if that happens, then people on parler can share their opinions by self publishing books, or printing flyers and passing them out, or yelling on street corners. If your complaint about these media is that they don't have the same reach as online social media, then we can agree we're not talking about censorship and instead talking about amplification of ideas.
hndudette2 6y ago
> choosing not to amplify the voices of people that have proven themselves capable of and prone to violence Then why not ban Twitter as well? I could show you hundreds of tweets from little known left-wing activists inciting violence during the BLM protests. This double standard tells us that the rationale given for banning Parler is just an excuse. The real reason is that executives in these companies are doing what their most vocal employees and the liberal media are pressuring them to do.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
pldr1234 6y ago
You have to discern what people here are really outraged about - and sadly, it's not free speech or constitutional rights or any real high principle. Those are just intellectual cover. After all, you don't see people clamoring in shock and about "unsettled" feelings regarding the moderation that happens here on HN.

by rrose 6y ago

johndevor 6y ago

Sure, 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 ago
It 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 ago
Go 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 ago

This 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 ago
Or 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.
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
Huh? Last time I checked, BLM app ( https://apps.apple.com/us/app/black-lives-matter/id955318790 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/black-lives-matter/id955318790 ) is on Apple store and the group has, among other notable events, burning Kenosha done on their bucket list. Google, Apple, FB, Twitter et al have zero issues supporting violence as long it supports a given side. I don't buy the analogy ( mostly because most analogies are crap ). Normal people try thought experiments and use the same situations and change one critical piece of information to see how it affects the model.
- bun_at_work 6y ago
  I didn't say anything about the BLM app. Don't know why you're bringing that up, other than to strawman, but hey, that's what they do.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    It is not a strawman. I introduced BLM specifically, because, just like not all Trump voters are violent, I am sure some are. BLM is just another side of the coin in my view. They are a group, who had instances of violent behaviors ( see 'fiery but mostly peaceful' CNN clip for reference ) during the past year(s?).
- rrose 6y ago
  youre mischaracterizing BLM. Parler posts were actively calling for violence and government overthrow. The mob at the capitol set up a gallows and were carrying handcuffs. To the (limited) extent that BLM protests turned violent, it was the result of situations on the ground getting out of hand, not planned in advance or incited by leadership. (Also, much of it was the result of aggression by police). There's certainly room for valid criticism of aspects of BLM protests but they are not at all comparable to the insurrection at the capitol this week.

ccleve 6y ago

It is censorship when those preventing freedom of speech are monopolies. When a small number of companies make it difficult to communicate via our main communication device, and there are no viable alternatives, then a fundamental right is being suppressed. There is no marketplace of ideas when there is no marketplace,

stjohnswarts 6y ago
Please point to where in the Constitutions that it says you have a right to post on twitter and facebook or put an app on a webstore?
- _-david-_ 6y ago
  There is a difference between legal/constitutional freedom of speech and freedom of speech in a cultural perspective.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

This is my view. These sites aren't censoring anybody- they're choosing not to amplify.

stjohnswarts 6y ago
Yep and leave section 230 alone as well.

agiroth 6y ago

It's important to distinguish that "not deleting something" is NOT the same as amplifying it. Amplifying it would be pasting images and links to Parler all over the Google Play splash page and all over the Google Play website, sending emails to all its gmail users to download Parler, or inserting Parler ads into some % of its ad impressions. They aren't doing that. "Leave it alone" is not the same thing as amplification, that's literally the distinction that is made in Section 230. The ONLY thing being asked for is that Parler polices itself (or the authorities get involved where appropriate), and that Google and Apple leave it be because all they do is serve as the conduit to get it onto the device they control. That is the way the world SHOULD work. No it doesn't give you the adrenaline rush of enforcing your desires on the world, but that's not a good thing to be enabling in the first place. If they had no control over the stores used to get apps on devices, the whole question would be moot. Their duopoly leads to this issue. Frankly, that control should be taken away.

rrose 6y ago
not deleting something allows it to be shared, or at least show up in search results. it allows it to be seen by people who otherwise would not see it- this is amplification.
- agiroth 6y ago
  Absolutely but the platform isn't doing the amplification, people do. This is the same thing as someone copying your chant on a street in front of a courthouse. The street isn't doing the amplifying, the people are.

Izkata 6y ago

> There's no censorship here- parler still exists, people are still free to share their (abhorrent) viewpoints there People are calling for AWS to drop Parler, and Parler has already come out and said if this happens, then Parler itself is gone forever.

rrose 6y ago
if that happens, then people on parler can share their opinions by self publishing books, or printing flyers and passing them out, or yelling on street corners. If your complaint about these media is that they don't have the same reach as online social media, then we can agree we're not talking about censorship and instead talking about amplification of ideas.

hndudette2 6y ago

> choosing not to amplify the voices of people that have proven themselves capable of and prone to violence Then why not ban Twitter as well? I could show you hundreds of tweets from little known left-wing activists inciting violence during the BLM protests. This double standard tells us that the rationale given for banning Parler is just an excuse. The real reason is that executives in these companies are doing what their most vocal employees and the liberal media are pressuring them to do.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

pldr1234 6y ago

You have to discern what people here are really outraged about - and sadly, it's not free speech or constitutional rights or any real high principle. Those are just intellectual cover. After all, you don't see people clamoring in shock and about "unsettled" feelings regarding the moderation that happens here on HN.