5 ms·
Every single player in this saga deserves nothing but contempt. Trump is reprehensible and his supporters are brainwashed. Big Tech conglomerates now openly dis
by meekmockmook 6y ago
Every single player in this saga deserves nothing but contempt. Trump is reprehensible and his supporters are brainwashed. Big Tech conglomerates now openly disenfranchise and deplatform millions of people simultaneously through a coordinated effort. The implications for the future of speech and dissent are terrifying. Just disgusting and depressing in every way. An internet utopianist's nightmare.
I don't want to live in the United States of Trump. I don't want to live in the United States of Dorsey, Bezos, Zuckerberg, and Pichai. The only way out is through sweeping antitrust enforcement against the entire tech industry.
- darig 6y agoAwwww... can't little mookie get himself a gay wedding cake anymore? Sad.
- asiando 6y agoI was ok with Facebook doing it, I'm not ok with a hosting kicking a paying customer out like this.
- linuxftw 6y agoHosting companies have been doing this long before the app store or twitter existed. You just didn't hear about it.
- loopz 6y agoThis is what "cloud" means.
- doodlebugging 6y agoI don't see a problem. To me it is similar to the situation where a business is allowed to refuse service to anyone at their own discretion. This has been used to discriminate openly but is still legal. The customers they were refusing to serve were also paying customers. There has to be a point beyond which some things are simply not allowable. In the past, societies have grown and prospered by codifying sets of standards by which others judge your behavior and then to define and apply sanctions to those who refuse to play by the rules laid down by society. This is how laws came to be passed that allow or restrict behavior widely seen by society as criminal, undesirable, dishonest, etc. We (any group of citizens or people with a common interest) need to be able to agree upon whether something should be allowed and once that determination is made, codify the law and define appropriate sanctions or punishments for those who choose to color outside the lines. It is generally accepted that promoting violence, advocating for murder of others because they exercise their right to vote for a different party, providing support to those whose goal is to sow dissent and to divide the citizenry using lies and propaganda, supporting Nazis or other reprehensible characters, etc is simply not copacetic and those who choose that path should face sanctions. The very least that you should do is to silence the messenger whose goal is to destroy you, your relationships, your society. Use their own message against them to educate everyone about why the things they are promoting are wrong and unacceptable. Rock and Roll Amazon!
- fooey 6y agoParler is openly and proudly hosting violent content. Their entire claim to fame is hosting the content no one else will host, but the obvious downside is no one will host you if that's your business plan.
- bebopcowboy 6y agoSo does twitter, as long as the violent content targets the correct people.
- dang 6y agoAccounts created just for ideological battle aren't allowed here. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- meekmockmook 6y agoFacebook and Twitter have been hosting violent content for years and years. Facebook has contributed to mass murder. Twitter to countless suicides. Far more deaths can be attributed to their platforms than some goofy right wing startup. These are facts. Big Tech's scale and power means they can exempt themselves from the rules they create. Are you really telling me Mark Zuckerberg has less blood on his hands than this John Matze guy? After literal genocides were coordinated via WhatsApp?
- gamblor956 6y agoTrue, but the violent content is an extremely small portion of the content on their sites, and they act quickly (and sometimes over-zealously) to remove such content when they find it. Parler does not, and in fact their lack of moderation was their key selling point.
- meekmockmook 6y agoSo because Twitter and Facebook are larger and have more resources to stamp out illegal activity (which they still do poorly), that means the violence, death, and algorithmic propaganda should be acceptable to host on their platform vs another? Makes no sense. Rules GAFA creates do not apply to themselves.
- Pfhreak 6y agoWait, should Amazon be obligated to host an app being used to organize anti-government violence?
- meekmockmook 6y agoThe entire backbone of the internet should not be in the hands of less than 5 companies.
- eropple 6y agoThe typically suggested counterproposal is state control of what is functionally a utility. And while the First Amendment definitely applies to political speech, it does not apply to threats, which are a large part of Parler's stock in trade. So what's your alternative?
- Pfhreak 6y agoThat's an answer to a different question. You and I might agree there, but that's not an answer to the question I asked.
- MontyCarloHall 6y agoAWS is hardly a single vertebra in the entire backbone of the internet. I’ll start worrying when Tier 1 carriers start blocking traffic. Until then, Parler is free to find another hosting solution.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- one2know 6y agoExactly, Centurylink demonstrated a couple months ago they alone could take down and disrupt IPV4 traffic worldwide. I'm starting to wonder if that was a simple configuration mistake or a pre-run.
- asiando 6y agoYes. If the content is illegal, it's up to the government to censor it.
- Angostura 6y ago> his supporters are brainwashed So, it would seem that there is a problem here. What could possible solutions be? Perhaps attempting to stem the flow of the radicalisation and brainwashing? > Big Tech conglomerates now openly disenfranchise and deplatform millions of people simultaneously through a coordinated effort. OK, so you don't like that approach to stopping brainwashing. What is your preferred solution? Would you like government to instead mandate that web platforms must continue to enable the brainwashing?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Tronno 6y agoI've been seeing this take a lot, generally without counter recommendations. If ejecting extremists from polite society is not an option, then what is? Some have suggested seeing things from their perspective, and engaging with them in some way. However, it is clear that they do not want to argue in good faith, and have become completely separated from logic and reality. No action at all is a decision in favor of the status quo, with the obvious outcomes. What, then, is the alternative?
- dukeofdoom 6y agoNot all of their grievances are crazy. Like asking for an independent audit of votes totals in the contested states. I'm not even American, and I would have loved to see that happen for the sake of transparent elections in the world. Instead we got Gaslighting from the media, and governors that absolutely refused.
- hourislate 6y agoI wouldn't worry too much about things you can't change. The way Trumps voters (72 million of them) are being treated by the Democrats, will likely destroy the country in civil war. Just get some popcorn and watch the shit show...
- meekmockmook 6y agoI am terrified that Trump supporters will respond to attacks on their ability to peacefully communicate with direct violence. We are entering an era where nobody believes in peace anymore.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y agopopcorn? I am buying weapons.