5 ms·

Step 1: Encourage everyone to use large centralized social media platforms. Step 2: Pressure those platforms to ban legal speech. (Unintended but predictable

Step 1: Encourage everyone to use large centralized social media platforms. Step 2: Pressure those platforms to ban legal speech. (Unintended but predictable consequence: People move to less censored platforms.) Step 3: Pressure the mobile OS duopoly to ban the less censored platforms. ^-- You are here. Step 4: Ban mobile providers from supporting internet connections on unapproved mobile devices. Step 5: Ban general purpose computing devices.

skoopie 6y ago
There is no question in my mind that this is exactly where we are heading. It's coming very quickly as well.
CarelessExpert 6y ago
> Pressure those platforms to ban legal speech Wait, direct threats of violence and child porn are legal speech now? Because that's what you'll find on Parler. Edit: for the sake of accuracy, Parler is unquestionably rife with threats of violence that they refuse to remove. Go visit /R/parlerwatch and despair. They do, however, remove CP from the site if it's reported by users, but as of 2020-12-02 they admit they lack any automated systems for detecting and removing it at scale.
- convery 6y ago
  Why is it that whenever someone posts a variation of "platforms shouldn't ban users for simply saying naughty words / having naughty opinions"; the first thing that comes to proponents minds is CP?
  - CarelessExpert 6y ago
    So you're just going to ignore the point, then, huh? Well, in case it wasn't clear, I'll try more words and hope this helps: Parler has knowingly allowed content to exist on their site that violates both the Google ToS and the law. This content isn't "naughty". It is very much illegal, and includes direct threats and incitement to violence among many other things. This includes, for example, calls to murder politicians, the police, etc. Parler has further affirmatively stated they will not remove that material despite having the ability to do so. In this way Parler distinguishes itself from Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and so forth. That is, of course, their choice. However, a failure to moderate this kind of material violates Google's ToS. It is therefore also Google's and Apple's choice to enforce their ToS and remove the Parler app from their store. In no way does this represent censorship (neither Google nor Apple are in any way obligated to distribute third party software), nor does the offending content represent legal speech.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    Because sad to say CP exists and is almost universally agreed to be enormously harmful, but free speech absolutists don't want to engage with reasonable questions of where of where and how limits on speech should be set. I'm in very of verybroad free speech permissions, but I'm also in favor of banning and prosecuting CP.
    - convery 6y ago
      Indeed, but such things are covered by other laws. Just curious as to why peoples mind doesn't go to removing copyrighted content, instructions for how to manufacture weaponry, animal-related issues etc. but seemingly always equate "posting naughty opinions" to "posting CP".
      - anigbrowl 6y ago
        'Other laws' is just a duck to avoid discussing the question, because those laws do limit absolute free speech. People's minds don't go to those other things first because they are all more debatable than CP and not necessarily limit cases. No equation is taking place outside of your own mind.
- bmarquez 6y ago
  > child porn > Because that's what you'll find on Parler. No article I've read substantiates the presence of child pornography. Source?
  - CarelessExpert 6y ago
    > https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/02/parler-pornography-problem/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/02/parler-... > Wernick elaborated after this story published, confirming that Parler has no system for detecting child pornography before it is viewed and potentially reported by users. However I absolutely admit your point: rather than affirmative statement of the presence of CP on the site, the issue is they've not built systems for finding and removing it.
    - bmarquez 6y ago
      So I use Parler occasionally, and one of the first things I noticed when I signed up is that they banned ALL pornography. They eventually loosened up their restrictions but I haven't run into any of it -- people generally sign up to talk about politics. They have a manual human moderation pool for removing illegal content. But they are very slow, it took over 12 hours for them to remove a spambot. Article about the porn stuff: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/7/parler-rebuts-the-washington-posts-characterizatio/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/7/parler-rebut... I keep wading into these threads defending Parler because they are nothing like 4chan, 8kun, or Gab. They do have moderation, they do remove illegal content, they just suck at it.
    - istinetz 6y ago
      I am willing to bet that hackernews also does not have an automated system for detecting child porn. And I am certain it didn't when it was still a very new platform. What's your point? By equivalence, you should be calling for hackernews to be shut down, right? By equivalence, you shouldn't be posting here.
  - ghostgirl19 6y ago
    Was on parler yesterday morning. Saw VIVID cp. so did husbands friend later in the day. I clicked a hashtag for a march. He was scrolling the discover page.
- touchpadder 6y ago
  That's an outright lie.
wbsun 6y ago
When did step 2 happen? Banning Trump? How could inciting speech that directly lead to violence and death be legal?
- quenix 6y ago
  It’s debatable whether his final two tweets directly called for violence.
  - suyash 6y ago
    they didn't, go read them again, they clearly called for peace yet were deleted and then media began it's bias propaganda.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  I don't want to play Trump's advocate, but I don't think his speech even went as far as saying "it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken"[0]. Moreover, I don't think that Trump is the only person whose legal speech has been been suppressed on popular social media platforms. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444
- slowmovintarget 6y ago
  Suppression of Hunter Biden's laptop scandal comes to mind.
wpm 6y ago
Oh please. The insurrection we saw in DC was planned, in the open, on Parler. That is hardly legal speech and no company is obligated to host it if they don’t want to. Until you can provide me with some actual proof Apple or Google were pressured by anything but the written law to remove this crap from their stores, say, a threatening phone call from a certain ranking Congressperson or judge or member of the executive branch, I’ll call this hysterics.
- newguy1234 6y ago
  I'm a conservative and recall the planning of the rally. No specifics were given other than "you need to be there because it will be crazy". Everyone hyped it up from there.
  - bufferout 6y ago
    You don't need to look very hard: https://thedonald.win/p/11ROLVhJcx/this-many-patriots-would-storm-t/ https://thedonald.win/p/11ROLVhJcx/this-many-patriots-would-...
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  It's interesting that your demand for proof requires a politician to have "pressured"/"threatened" Apple or Google, whereas to believe in Trump's culpability for what the insurrectionists did you will settle for him merely insinuating violence.
- touchpadder 6y ago
  Oh please. US-wide riots have been planned in the open on Facebook. In the US in 2020 hundreds(thousands) more people were killed than in 2019. In Chicago only 50% year-on-year rise, almost 300 in just one city. Looking from the other side of the pond I'm happy to not be there.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    Yeah, seconded. Those aren't even riots. They are deliberate political acts explicitly stated to have the goal of wiping out the police and local government authority - how is it possible an actual "autonomous zone" was created in a major US city? And how was that not insurrection? It sure looked like it from abroad, yet local leaders rolled over and even encouraged it. Today I read the mayor of Portland was attacked whilst he was dining. The "mostly peaceful protesters" have burned his apartment building, attempted to take over police stations and court houses, and decapitated models of the mayor. He supports them anyway - it's so crazy it's impossible to believe, really. What is going on in the USA? If FB/Twitter had cracked down on the BLM organisers putting together nightly attacks on the police, at least nobody could say they were being inconsistent now. Instead they put banners up on random developer docs sites saying they support BLM. Blatant double standards.
zpeti 6y ago
The less worrying option 4 is that the right just has to use browsers and desktop computers and not apps. But I worry that you are right. Visa and MasterCard have already been non politically neutral. And where will the left stop? Even if we talk about actual nazis, should they have internet connections? Electricity? The right to property? It’s not like the left seem to be satisfied with anything they achieve, they always want more. And first it’s actual nazis, then it’s qanon, then it’s lockdown sceptics, then it’s??
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > It’s not like the left seem to be satisfied with anything they achieve, they always want more. If you're going to group millions of people together and judge them by their extremes, you might want to try applying the same logic to "the right" and see if you are happy with the slippery slope you construct.
  - zpeti 6y ago
    Fine, you are right, I’ve said the same thing many times, and fallen into it myself. However on the left the people pushing for this are as mainstream as Nancy pelosi, so I’m not sure what term to use. “Pro censorship left”?
- xmprt 6y ago
  I'm part of the left and I just want to live in peace. I'm not a fan of riots from either side. But when the right riots, in this case it's because of alleged election fraud (that was thrown out by every judge) and led to multiple people dead. When the left riots it's because of police brutality.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
slowmovintarget 6y ago
You forgot the formation of Hate Speech Tribunals. 4.5 maybe?

skoopie 6y ago

There is no question in my mind that this is exactly where we are heading. It's coming very quickly as well.

CarelessExpert 6y ago

> Pressure those platforms to ban legal speech Wait, direct threats of violence and child porn are legal speech now? Because that's what you'll find on Parler. Edit: for the sake of accuracy, Parler is unquestionably rife with threats of violence that they refuse to remove. Go visit /R/parlerwatch and despair. They do, however, remove CP from the site if it's reported by users, but as of 2020-12-02 they admit they lack any automated systems for detecting and removing it at scale.

convery 6y ago
Why is it that whenever someone posts a variation of "platforms shouldn't ban users for simply saying naughty words / having naughty opinions"; the first thing that comes to proponents minds is CP?
- CarelessExpert 6y ago
  So you're just going to ignore the point, then, huh? Well, in case it wasn't clear, I'll try more words and hope this helps: Parler has knowingly allowed content to exist on their site that violates both the Google ToS and the law. This content isn't "naughty". It is very much illegal, and includes direct threats and incitement to violence among many other things. This includes, for example, calls to murder politicians, the police, etc. Parler has further affirmatively stated they will not remove that material despite having the ability to do so. In this way Parler distinguishes itself from Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and so forth. That is, of course, their choice. However, a failure to moderate this kind of material violates Google's ToS. It is therefore also Google's and Apple's choice to enforce their ToS and remove the Parler app from their store. In no way does this represent censorship (neither Google nor Apple are in any way obligated to distribute third party software), nor does the offending content represent legal speech.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  Because sad to say CP exists and is almost universally agreed to be enormously harmful, but free speech absolutists don't want to engage with reasonable questions of where of where and how limits on speech should be set. I'm in very of verybroad free speech permissions, but I'm also in favor of banning and prosecuting CP.
  - convery 6y ago
    Indeed, but such things are covered by other laws. Just curious as to why peoples mind doesn't go to removing copyrighted content, instructions for how to manufacture weaponry, animal-related issues etc. but seemingly always equate "posting naughty opinions" to "posting CP".
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      'Other laws' is just a duck to avoid discussing the question, because those laws do limit absolute free speech. People's minds don't go to those other things first because they are all more debatable than CP and not necessarily limit cases. No equation is taking place outside of your own mind.
bmarquez 6y ago
> child porn > Because that's what you'll find on Parler. No article I've read substantiates the presence of child pornography. Source?
- CarelessExpert 6y ago
  > https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/02/parler-pornography-problem/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/02/parler-... > Wernick elaborated after this story published, confirming that Parler has no system for detecting child pornography before it is viewed and potentially reported by users. However I absolutely admit your point: rather than affirmative statement of the presence of CP on the site, the issue is they've not built systems for finding and removing it.
  - bmarquez 6y ago
    So I use Parler occasionally, and one of the first things I noticed when I signed up is that they banned ALL pornography. They eventually loosened up their restrictions but I haven't run into any of it -- people generally sign up to talk about politics. They have a manual human moderation pool for removing illegal content. But they are very slow, it took over 12 hours for them to remove a spambot. Article about the porn stuff: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/7/parler-rebuts-the-washington-posts-characterizatio/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/7/parler-rebut... I keep wading into these threads defending Parler because they are nothing like 4chan, 8kun, or Gab. They do have moderation, they do remove illegal content, they just suck at it.
  - istinetz 6y ago
    I am willing to bet that hackernews also does not have an automated system for detecting child porn. And I am certain it didn't when it was still a very new platform. What's your point? By equivalence, you should be calling for hackernews to be shut down, right? By equivalence, you shouldn't be posting here.
- ghostgirl19 6y ago
  Was on parler yesterday morning. Saw VIVID cp. so did husbands friend later in the day. I clicked a hashtag for a march. He was scrolling the discover page.
touchpadder 6y ago
That's an outright lie.

wbsun 6y ago

When did step 2 happen? Banning Trump? How could inciting speech that directly lead to violence and death be legal?

quenix 6y ago
It’s debatable whether his final two tweets directly called for violence.
- suyash 6y ago
  they didn't, go read them again, they clearly called for peace yet were deleted and then media began it's bias propaganda.
dane-pgp 6y ago
I don't want to play Trump's advocate, but I don't think his speech even went as far as saying "it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken"[0]. Moreover, I don't think that Trump is the only person whose legal speech has been been suppressed on popular social media platforms. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444
slowmovintarget 6y ago
Suppression of Hunter Biden's laptop scandal comes to mind.

wpm 6y ago

Oh please. The insurrection we saw in DC was planned, in the open, on Parler. That is hardly legal speech and no company is obligated to host it if they don’t want to. Until you can provide me with some actual proof Apple or Google were pressured by anything but the written law to remove this crap from their stores, say, a threatening phone call from a certain ranking Congressperson or judge or member of the executive branch, I’ll call this hysterics.

newguy1234 6y ago
I'm a conservative and recall the planning of the rally. No specifics were given other than "you need to be there because it will be crazy". Everyone hyped it up from there.
- bufferout 6y ago
  You don't need to look very hard: https://thedonald.win/p/11ROLVhJcx/this-many-patriots-would-storm-t/ https://thedonald.win/p/11ROLVhJcx/this-many-patriots-would-...
dane-pgp 6y ago
It's interesting that your demand for proof requires a politician to have "pressured"/"threatened" Apple or Google, whereas to believe in Trump's culpability for what the insurrectionists did you will settle for him merely insinuating violence.
touchpadder 6y ago
Oh please. US-wide riots have been planned in the open on Facebook. In the US in 2020 hundreds(thousands) more people were killed than in 2019. In Chicago only 50% year-on-year rise, almost 300 in just one city. Looking from the other side of the pond I'm happy to not be there.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Yeah, seconded. Those aren't even riots. They are deliberate political acts explicitly stated to have the goal of wiping out the police and local government authority - how is it possible an actual "autonomous zone" was created in a major US city? And how was that not insurrection? It sure looked like it from abroad, yet local leaders rolled over and even encouraged it. Today I read the mayor of Portland was attacked whilst he was dining. The "mostly peaceful protesters" have burned his apartment building, attempted to take over police stations and court houses, and decapitated models of the mayor. He supports them anyway - it's so crazy it's impossible to believe, really. What is going on in the USA? If FB/Twitter had cracked down on the BLM organisers putting together nightly attacks on the police, at least nobody could say they were being inconsistent now. Instead they put banners up on random developer docs sites saying they support BLM. Blatant double standards.

zpeti 6y ago

The less worrying option 4 is that the right just has to use browsers and desktop computers and not apps. But I worry that you are right. Visa and MasterCard have already been non politically neutral. And where will the left stop? Even if we talk about actual nazis, should they have internet connections? Electricity? The right to property? It’s not like the left seem to be satisfied with anything they achieve, they always want more. And first it’s actual nazis, then it’s qanon, then it’s lockdown sceptics, then it’s??

dane-pgp 6y ago
> It’s not like the left seem to be satisfied with anything they achieve, they always want more. If you're going to group millions of people together and judge them by their extremes, you might want to try applying the same logic to "the right" and see if you are happy with the slippery slope you construct.
- zpeti 6y ago
  Fine, you are right, I’ve said the same thing many times, and fallen into it myself. However on the left the people pushing for this are as mainstream as Nancy pelosi, so I’m not sure what term to use. “Pro censorship left”?
xmprt 6y ago
I'm part of the left and I just want to live in peace. I'm not a fan of riots from either side. But when the right riots, in this case it's because of alleged election fraud (that was thrown out by every judge) and led to multiple people dead. When the left riots it's because of police brutality.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

slowmovintarget 6y ago

You forgot the formation of Hate Speech Tribunals. 4.5 maybe?