7 ms·
Parlor has been removed from Google Play
- throwawaygulf 6y agoCan't have any wrongthink out there.
- SN76477 6y agoToo many conversations inciting violence.
- Proven 6y agoSo what? Every platform has them. They get reported and removed. Fortunately we don't have to use company stores. I use Gab in the Web browser.
- akhilcacharya 6y agoFor those not aware, Gab is notable for having a bunch of QAnon adherents post regularly.
- another_sock 6y agoPut them in prison and get them fired, they are fascists!
- inawarminister 6y agoAye, like the ol' Red Scare. Purges are good an' all. After all, their worldview is too scary to tolerate, beyond the pale.
- another_sock 6y agoWe can't have the dangerous Qanonners around. It's too dangerous, they might take our rights away. They must be rounded up asap.
- chillwaves 6y agoYou are all over these threads just trolling with nonsense. That's against our community guidelines. It'd be a service to the community if HN banned you.
- another_sock 6y agoYes we should ban everybody who shows open disagreement and doesn't take the party line in the serious manner we see fit. I am not trolling, I am highlighting the absurd manner in which so many HN commenters have suddenly become champions of Stalinistic censorship by all these multinational corporations. Yes, it's a great idea for the community to ban people who say things which are unpopular. That will lead to a very healthy community filled with free thought and critical thinking.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- shadowgovt 6y agoThe failure to put any constraint leads to 4chan. Optimum is probably somewhere between the extremes. But the QAnon conspiracy thrives in the 4chan laissez-faire extreme.
- another_sock 6y agoThe people who think 4chan is some existential threat to society rather than anti-social people and people with autism blowing off steam and being mean to each other are the people who aren't very familiar with 4chan. 99% of it is just shitposts, the other 0.9% is people who aren't doing anything bad, the 0.1% is removed.
- Fjolsvith 6y agoHaha, socker moms are fascist!
- another_sock 6y agoYes they just tried to have a violent coup! They tossed papers on the floor of our leaders. It was the worst thing I ever saw, rioting on steroids. An insurrection!
- akhilcacharya 6y agoI'm struggling to see where I said that. I will, however, state the fact that many of the people who participated in the insurrection on Wednesday, of which a large cross-section believe in QAnon and wore QAnon paraphernalia, have been fired from their jobs or have been imprisoned.
- cauthon 6y agoI’m confused. You don’t think social media platforms should remove posts inciting violence, because the posts will get removed by the platform?
- asdf333 6y agothe supreme court has repeatedly affirmed that speech that incites violence is not allowed.
- throwawaygulf 6y agoEveryone repeats this orthodox line as if it's true, but there's rarely any evidence for it. Can you post three Parlor links that supposedly contain "calls to violence" here?
- SN76477 6y agohttps://imgur.com/a/7hTCD3w https://imgur.com/a/7hTCD3w
- throwawaygulf 6y agoThat is two separate screenshots stitched together from posts that were removed within an hour for inciting violence. Multiple leftists calls to violence posted on reddit: https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/06/29/reddit-ignores-calls-violence-left-leaning-subreddits-despite-censoring-pro-trump-subreddit-n109864 https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/06/29/reddit-ignores... I'll ask again, since you didn't even follow the instructions: post three links from Parlor that show calls for inciting violence. I'll wait.
- DangitBobby 6y agoThe lizard people are finally taking over
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- SerLava 6y agoThe CEO said he wouldn't stop crimes happening on there
- throwawaygulf 6y ago[citation needed]
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoIf you'd like to post some wrongthink on my personal blog, or the ardour.org forums, or even right here on HN, just let me know. I'm sure we can arrange something.
- throwawaygulf 6y agoAs long as you're honest, philosophically even-keeled, and apply the rules consistently, let's go. But for some reason, I have this feeling that that's not the case. If you're pro-safetyism, you're anti-truth, anti-facts, pro-illogic, and are against wrongthink.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoWell, I admit that the first location was a purely rhetorical ploy, because even I don't post on my personal blog anymore, and we'd prefer not to have a forum site about a digital audio workstation cluttered with unrelated posts. But I think my point is clear: there are oodles of places you can write and post whatever you want. Even here on HN, you can say a great deal of stuff that others will consider wrong without being "censored". I'm certainly against "wrongthink" which is just a stupid re-use of a literary trick currently being massively over-referenced online in response to various events today. There's wrong, there's false, there's stupid. There isn't any wrongthink in my conception of the world.
- throwawaygulf 6y ago>But I think my point is clear: there are oodles of places you can write and post whatever you want. Awesome, so we agree there are oodles of places BLM and leftists can protest that are not high traffic roads, freeways, main streets, federal courthouses, etc. They can protest in the Mojave desert, they won't be censored there. >I'm certainly against "wrongthink" ... There's wrong, there's false, there's stupid. There isn't any wrongthink in my conception of the world. Awesome, so we both agree with the objective fact that Blacks commit more violent crimes per capita than any other race. That's a fact, that's neither wrong, false, nor stupid.
- another_sock 6y agoThis is good!
- erichocean 6y agoAmazon/AWS is profiting off of Parler's hate. How long before they ask Parler to find another provider?
- rdxm 6y agowhy dont you stop and think about that one for a minute or two....lol....
- brent_noorda 6y agoI made a beautiful app called ShoutFireInACrowdedTheater. With one tap it would shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Great interface. Amazing graphics. Voice activated. ADA compliant. But Google and Apple both banned it. Cancel Culture is real!
- jessaustin 6y agoYou should link to the repo so we can sideload it.
- phendrenad2 6y agoWho goes to the theater anymore?
- duvenaud 6y agoTheatres do indeed have an app to let someone yell "fire", which is the fire alarm. It funny to me that the standard example of speech that shouldn't be protected is the only one that's required to be protected by building codes.
- yt-sdb 6y agoI don't see the contradiction or confusion implied by "funny". You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded building when there is no fire. This is why it is a classic example of reasonable limitations to free speech.
- duvenaud 6y agoSorry, what's the proposed limitation? It's presumably not a rule against saying "fire" at all, since that what fire alarms are for. I presume you mean that the limitations on speech take the form of punishments after the fact for saying "fire" when there wasn't one. I agree this is sensible. But I think it's an important point that we can't (and shouldn't, and don't) ban people entirely from shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, because if they're right, it's important to know. I think it's worth discussing this more fleshed-out example, because it shows that in order to limit speech without shutting down useful information, you need to have some sort of trusted fact-finding apparatus to punish false alarms, which then become an important locus of power.
- 29athrowaway 6y agoTitle should say Parler, not Parlor.
- malwarebytess 6y agoother, large, thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25693742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25693742 and my comment if anyone wants to discuss https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25693943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25693943
- tonystubblebine 6y agoI've seen enough of these HN threads to at least accept that a lot of people in this community will think this is morally wrong on the part of Google. So in the spirit of understanding, I'm curious, how they see the rights of the product developer? Is it just at a certain size the product developer no longer has a right to make a product that they are proud of? That "pride in craft" is how I see it. For many products the content is the product, more so than the actual software features. For Twitter, the product experience is changed more by the presence of Trump than it would be by an Edit button (probably). For Google Play, the experience is defined by which apps are in the store. These platforms put their thumb on the scales in all sorts of ways. For example they will recruit and cut special deals to bring people on board. For example, Twitter had that NFL deal at one point where you could watch games live. As a product owner, the motivation to build something I'm proud of is at least as motivating as the desire to make money. And if some person or organization insisted on using my product in a way that was abhorrent to me, to the point that it cut into my pride in the craftsmanship of my product experience, then absolutely I'd toss them out. The principle is "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." No matter what my TOS says, there's always a 30 day update clause which means that's how long it would take me to change terms and refuse service. So this really is an underlying principle for services regardless of their TOS or community guidelines. Then the idea that I could throw someone off of my own product and then get yelled at about it--well it confuses me. Prior to seeing the discussions on HN, my expectation would be that throwing someone off of the platform is the equivalent of removing a feature and thus it might come at the cost of some customers. And that's just the constant calculus of any product changes. Is it that "private platforms have to protect free speech people" have never considered this? Or that there's a reason that the pride of the product owner doesn't factor in?
- FeepingCreature 6y agoThat's a fully general argument against any anti-discrimination law. Compare: "Do I not have the right to live in a country I am proud of, a country without n****s, k***s or g***s?" No, you don't have the right to make yourself proud in an arbitrary way. You can just put the label "proud" on anything you want that you can't get, so this is already an accepted limitation. There's nothing special about "a product."
- not_a_moth 6y agoAnd YT deletes content mentioning election fraud, and twitter permanent bans the president, all under the historically totalitarian guise of "safety" Nothing wrong here at all. As Eric Weinstein put it, something went terribly wrong at big tech.
- iscrewyou 6y agoThe president for the last 4 years used the leniency of big tech to work up his supporters. Then told them to take over the capitol on his way out of the White House. Now everyone is surprised to see when big tech says enough is enough. Where else would these people draw the line if not here?
- tonystubblebine 6y agoI'm beginning to think free speech advocates here don't believe in property rights. Big Tech can do what they want with their products. They own them.
- Fjolsvith 6y agoTell that to Ma Bell.
- bcrl 6y agoMa Bell has pretty strict privacy laws that it must adhere to.
- Fjolsvith 6y agoMa Bell was broke up into pieces.
- bcrl 6y agoBut many of the legacy telecom laws remain on the books. It's tech that was exempted from these regulations, not legacy telecom. Sadly the privacy protections we had on phone calls were never applied to data. That would have resulted in a very different world than that in which we live today.
- ge96 6y agoCurious, if it's a platform issue like an app store. If it was a website who can shut that down? ICANN?
- evan_ 6y agoany vendor in theory. The host, upstream provider, DNS provider, domain registrar, CDN, anti-ddos service, lots of options. I don’t know enough about ICANN but I think they only way they could do anything to a single site would be to lean on the registrar.
- disown 6y agoYoutube, Google, Apple, FB, Twitter, etc... I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need to look into collusion/cartel behavior of these tech companies. I'm sure I'll be downvoted like before by the suddenly "tech company" worshiping anti-free speech crowd here, but the coordinated nature of censorship really does need looking into.
- asdf333 6y agothis issue clearly falls into the “can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre” bucket which is where the limits of free speech are set in this country. this isn’t a well established limit to free speech in this country in case you’ve forgotten from hs
- devmunchies 6y agoI keep seeing the same "fire in theater" and "paradox of tolerance" comments as if some organization just released the flying monkeys. WTH.
- kombucha111 6y agoThey are just well known examples. Like stuff you learn in high school. So a lot of people have the same general knowledge. It doesn't seem like any sort of big conspiracy. In fact before reading the comments here both ideas came to mind immediately.
- 3gg 6y agoI have upvoted to counter a downvote. I think your opinion would not be downvoted as much if you simply stated your thought without labelling others. Personally, I don't believe (though I have no evidence in this regard) there was any coordination here. Companies like Twitter and Facebook have been profiting from disinformation and hate speech for years, and Trump is neither the start nor the end of it. They should have banned him and others much earlier, but just didn't feel like the trouble of standing for basic ethics and human rights was worth that sweet stock. Now they can ban the man not only without hurting their bottom line, but also with a nice PR boost all along. And as soon as one makes the first step, the other tech-herd follows. No coordination, just VP herd mentality.
- exabrial 6y agoI miss the Usenet days when hackers were Libertarians.
- devmunchies 6y agoSame days where "punk" meant you rebelled against ALL authority, mega corps and govt alike. I'm pulling for a "hacker" resurgence. I think reddit and big tech made our generation too agreeable.
- another_sock 6y agoHave to get those points bruh, have to get that reddit gold!
- subsection1h 6y agoI spent most of my time in comp.lang.c, and I don't recall anyone there labeling themselves capital L libertarians. On topic: comp.lang.c.moderated was created for a reason.
- robbywashere_ 6y agoWhy do I get the feeling the “free market capitalists “ are the ones bemoaning 1st amendment rights on private platforms. Oh the irony !
- eyelidlessness 6y agoRight? They just spent the last few months talking about how their opponents are radical socialists, and now they want the government to go regulate what speech private companies amplify or don’t.
- kombucha111 6y agoIt really is truly hilarious and baffling.
- exabrial 6y agoOne has to remember, Apple, Google, and Facebook all have partisan anti-monopoly regulation gaining traction. This is nothing more than an attempt to cozy up to the incoming administration to protect their monopolies and abuse of consumers.
- tomByrer 6y agoThere's an angle I hadn't considered! Helps that one of the Biden team was once part of Twitter ;) Though keep in mind (at least with FB) is that many-most Liberal states joined in the lawsuits; eg California joined against Facebook: https://www.kdrv.com/content/news/Oregon-joins-multi-state-lawsuit-against-Facebook-alleging-anti-competitive-business-practices-573347691.html https://www.kdrv.com/content/news/Oregon-joins-multi-state-l...
- jeredsims 6y agoBrass tax. The righteous do not incite violence. The unrighteousness do. They have been for decades. The righteous finally fight back and Big Tech and media convinces those brainwashed by the media, to believe what they say because their indoctrinal tactics have absorbed their individuality for decades. They are mentally ill people siding with big media and big tech because they are like those they follow... they cannot compete on even playing fields wearing the garments of inferiority complexes, embarrassment and low self esteem.