15 ms·

Political ideology that is unethical deserves no platform, cheating, killing, attacking, are all examples of that. Nobody deserves to get a platform, and nobody

by vr46 6y ago

Political ideology that is unethical deserves no platform, cheating, killing, attacking, are all examples of that. Nobody deserves to get a platform, and nobody gets to trample other peoples’ rights either.

ekianjo 6y ago
So was everyone on Parler guilty by default? That's an interesting way of seeing the world.
- arentyouspecial 6y ago
  Considering their target audience, yes.
- vr46 6y ago
  Here’s the irony: Parler has been banning “liberals” and “leftists” for months. It’s an overtly political platform and clearly for a particular political ideology.
  - iambateman 6y ago
    There’s nothing wrong with enabling a platform which is overtly political. If I want to start a libertarian-only dating site...why not? There is everything wrong with enabling a platform which actively supports violence.
    - centimeter 6y ago
      > There is everything wrong with enabling a platform which actively supports violence. Socialism as an ideology actively and inherently supports violence, but it has plenty of platforms in the US.
      - eyelidlessness 6y ago
        Let’s hear about how socialism as an ideology actively and inherently supports violence. I’m genuinely curious.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Certain forms of socialism ("revolutionary socialism") explicitly reject electoralism, reformism, and incrementalism as means toward change. After a socialist regime is established, however, I know of no form of socialism that encapsulates violence as a core concept.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        eyelidlessness 6y ago
        Even revolutionary variants don’t necessarily need violence. It’s certainly a high potential in revolution, but not a guarantee. This isn’t just hypothetical, all or nearly all of us on here have witnessed revolutions which didn’t employ violence (though they certainly endured it).
        pmiller2 6y ago
        This is true. Revolutions need not be violent. It's simply the case that the vast majority are. Revolutionary socialism does not reject revolution simply because it may be violent. Rather, it accepts violence as a possible necessary means to an end.
        eyelidlessness 6y ago
        Agreed. But ~some variants of socialism consider officially blessed outlets for change insufficient and accept that violence may be a part of circumventing their limitations~ is a very far leap from ~socialism is inherently violent~. Edit to add: it’s probably helpful in illustrating the difference to remove political ideology and highlight other movements which have drawn similar conclusions. As an example, in the Civil Rights era, many people trying to effect change according to officially blessed outlets were sprayed with fire hoses, beaten, attacked with dogs, even murdered. Often in plain sight, sometimes symbolically as a warning to others who might follow their lead. Others drew the conclusion that the officially blessed outlets for the change they sought were a facade, that they’d be similarly violently excluded from shaping the world they lived in. Some of them determined that the only way they could achieve any kind of justice was to reserve the right to use force to achieve it. Were they inherently violent?
    - justaguy88 6y ago
      Though we need to carve out some exceptions, like people discussing UFC
  - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
    Parler doesn't ban anyone but actual trolls and crazies who post porn, promote commercial content, or post vindictive or violent content. Pretty much the same TOS as most other platforms.
    - xxpor 6y ago
      Trolling isn't free speech?
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    > It’s an overtly political platform and clearly for a particular political ideology. You could say exactly the same for Twitter (remember the Hunter Biden laptop story? Of no you don't, because it was censored there), or even Google which clearly de-prioritizes search results based on their ideologies.
- mlyle 6y ago
  If people on the right want their own social networks, etc, that's fine. But they're going to need to have moderation and keep the violent extremism down. I'm sure there's legitimate, law-abiding users of all of these things that get caught in the crossfire... but if the platforms will not impose a minimal amount of moderation one shouldn't be surprised that others will want to deny them services and business relationships.
  - gedy 6y ago
    But they were mostly peaceful too
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- seppin 6y ago
  No, but the people not calling for violence probably still have their twitter and facebook accounts so we arent talking about them.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  Basically the whole proposition of parler was that it was a refuge for alt-right/proto-fash/actual-fash who perceive moderation on other platforms to be stifling. Yeah, I’d wager the vast majority of Parler users are either involved in the kinds of shit that finally tipped the scales or giving it safe haven. Even if not, why is Apple or any other organization obligated to host them?
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    No, that was not the proposition of Parler, and it was specifically against the TOS and still is.
    - eyelidlessness 6y ago
      And yet, it’s where the people who value that proposition keep flocking. It’s almost like they understand some subtext about the service and its intent.
    - conception 6y ago
      TOS doesn’t mean anything if they aren’t enforced.
      - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        They are. Go ahead and report something, then let us know how long it stays up. People organize violence on twitter almost every single day.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      If they actually enforced their TOS 90% of their extremist userbase would leave, which is why a post about shooting Mike Pence by one of their most followed users could stay up for days until Apple threatened them.
      - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        “Hang Mike Pence” was trending at the top of twitter. Now what? They’re a pre-series A startup with a very small staff. If people don’t report things, it’s not feasible to expect that they’ll all be actioned. Instead of reporting the post, activists with an agenda thought it better to cherry pick them and attack platforms. A more honest test would have been to report the content and see if they acted on it. But let’s not kid ourselves, this campaign was disingenuous from the beginning. The real goal is to shut down a perceived enemy in the culture war.
mc32 6y ago
What? What does unethical even mean? That's a weasel word. Pelosi lies, Schumer lies, McConnel lies, Trump lies, Biden lies. They all lie. They all cheat too. Are you going to deplatform 99%+ of politicians and 80+ of regular people too?
- rootsudo 6y ago
  Exactly. What scale, or how do you judge what is a lie? What even is a "lie?" Someone disgruntled that is an USA citizen? That is not an USA Citizen? It's like everyone forgot Politicans jobs are to play the wind, say the right words, garner support and always stay in the limelight of what society thinks they "represent." I've been reading old newspaper articles/time magazines from the 1940s-70's and it's amazing how different the world itself, from media really represents and how these companies all join together on a message such as this.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Why not? Deplatform all the politicians -- at least the 95% who actively lie and work against the interests of the American people. While we're at it, kick them out of Washington on their asses. Nothing of value will be lost.
  - smsm42 6y ago
    That's not how it works. Instead, politicians are deplatforming what they want. You don't control the process, they do. Even if in the moment they deplatform people that you dislike, never think you have any control over it.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      If Donald Trump holds a press conference and nobody comes, does it make a sound?
      - smsm42 6y ago
        A better question is - do you think current politicians are so perfect that you can trust them with controlling who can and can not have press conferences? Surely they would never abuse it for any other ends when they're done with Donald Trump!
centimeter 6y ago
> Political ideology that is unethical deserves no platform I like the implication that ~half the country is just blanket "unethical" and doesn't deserve to speak.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  I'm pretty okay with silencing racism, fascism, nationalism, and misogynism, myself. How about you?
  - smsm42 6y ago
    I'm pretty not okay with silencing everybody that anybody can call "racism", provided that pretty much anything nowdays can be called racist - from Abraham Lincoln (https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/university/uw-madison-students-call-for-removal-of-abraham-lincoln-statue-on-bascom-hill/article_b12c83c9-38a1-5e68-9964-beabe4046d02.html https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/university/uw-m...) to yoga (https://www.foxnews.com/us/americans-who-practice-yoga-contribute-to-white-supremacy-michigan-state-university-professor-claims https://www.foxnews.com/us/americans-who-practice-yoga-contr...). Sorry, can't find a "z" one, but I'm sure somebody somewhere called it racist too. So no, I'm not OK with banning everything from Abraham Lincoln to yoga.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Zionism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl... You're welcome. I'm pretty okay with the Abe Lincoln angle, but the yoga article is ridiculously fringe thinking that nobody could possibly take seriously.
      - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
        Zoroastrianism?
        6y ago
seppin 6y ago
Exactly. By calling all the filth and calls for violence on Parler "conservative", you really aren't helping your metrics in trying to win elections in the future.
rootsudo 6y ago
Because, The political Ideology of the United States already does not do that? Why do you think we have a Military? Why do you think we have a criminal system? Why do you think we have Justice and Courts? The whole creation of the United States was unethical because every citizen was of the British Crown and were traitors. Or, are you not aware of your history and that this de platforming is only making the other side message much more stronger. It really is eye-widening how many people fail to see the consequence of removing a service, and how it hinders intelligence, counter intelligence and general observation.
- rvz 6y ago
  > Or, are you not aware of your history and that this de platforming is only making the other side message much more stronger. This is the point that supporters of de-platforming fail to recognise. They preach "Build your own platform" yet they still persist to de-platform until the target cannot be de-platformed off the internet. After all their efforts, Gab is still alive since they are self-hosted and once Parler is taken off of AWS, they will open more Gab accounts. I can only see that it will either lead to Gab receiving a wave of new users from Parler or these ex-Parler users will start creating encrypted group chats on Telegram or Signal which also cannot be taken down.
  - alphabettsy 6y ago
    The point is to make it significantly more difficult to recruit and spread. Doesn’t change the people who are already committed, but probably prevents people from discovering it.
waffle_ss 6y ago
What does that even mean? Obama literally had his own drone kill list; he personally authorized the drone-execution of multiple American citizens abroad without trial. Yet much more than keeping Twitter access, he got a Nobel peace prize. "Unethical" is a post-hoc rationalization; what we're seeing now goes much deeper than that.
shripadk 6y ago
You do realise that this is the exact behaviour that caused such a deep divide in the first place? You have already decided that half of the World is unethical and deserves no platform. Just because we support a political ideology that you do not agree with? Wow! And I thought you guys are the free speech advocates!
- arolihas 6y ago
  I don't think Parler represented half of the country’s political ideology. At least I hope not.
  - shripadk 6y ago
    You make it seem like Parler only had violent posts. I hope you don't club every member of Parler with violent extremists. And I'm talking about conservative/right wing ideology. Not Parler specifically. Because if Big Tech is taking a moral high ground I hope it can apply the same policies to itself. Let's start with Twitter shall we? How about this 2018 post: https://twitter.com/MadamePete/status/1017462143279681541?s=19 https://twitter.com/MadamePete/status/1017462143279681541?s=... What has Twitter done to take it down? 2019 post: https://twitter.com/jcmithnoy/status/1085855272793366529?s=19 https://twitter.com/jcmithnoy/status/1085855272793366529?s=1... 2016 post: https://twitter.com/lil_cmb/status/765737247781949444?s=19 https://twitter.com/lil_cmb/status/765737247781949444?s=19 2018 post: https://twitter.com/DutchessOfDork/status/1005538609032769536?s=19 https://twitter.com/DutchessOfDork/status/100553860903276953... Can I say that just because you are on Twitter you represent a political ideology aligned with the lunatics above? Looking at the tweets above can I say "I hope Twitter doesn't represent half of the country's ideology. I hope not". This is the biggest irony of it all. Twitter openly bans right wing accounts while not doing anything to these violent posts by left wingers. you have toxicity in both Parler and Twitter. The only difference is that the right wing toxicity that existed in Twitter shifted to Parler while the left wing toxicity remained behind in Twitter itself. This is balkanization. This isn't solving the problem in any way, shape or form.
    - aluminum96 6y ago

by vr46 6y ago

ekianjo 6y ago

So was everyone on Parler guilty by default? That's an interesting way of seeing the world.

arentyouspecial 6y ago
Considering their target audience, yes.
vr46 6y ago
Here’s the irony: Parler has been banning “liberals” and “leftists” for months. It’s an overtly political platform and clearly for a particular political ideology.
- iambateman 6y ago
  There’s nothing wrong with enabling a platform which is overtly political. If I want to start a libertarian-only dating site...why not? There is everything wrong with enabling a platform which actively supports violence.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    > There is everything wrong with enabling a platform which actively supports violence. Socialism as an ideology actively and inherently supports violence, but it has plenty of platforms in the US.
    - eyelidlessness 6y ago
      Let’s hear about how socialism as an ideology actively and inherently supports violence. I’m genuinely curious.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Certain forms of socialism ("revolutionary socialism") explicitly reject electoralism, reformism, and incrementalism as means toward change. After a socialist regime is established, however, I know of no form of socialism that encapsulates violence as a core concept.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        eyelidlessness 6y ago
        Even revolutionary variants don’t necessarily need violence. It’s certainly a high potential in revolution, but not a guarantee. This isn’t just hypothetical, all or nearly all of us on here have witnessed revolutions which didn’t employ violence (though they certainly endured it).
        pmiller2 6y ago
        This is true. Revolutions need not be violent. It's simply the case that the vast majority are. Revolutionary socialism does not reject revolution simply because it may be violent. Rather, it accepts violence as a possible necessary means to an end.
        eyelidlessness 6y ago
        Agreed. But ~some variants of socialism consider officially blessed outlets for change insufficient and accept that violence may be a part of circumventing their limitations~ is a very far leap from ~socialism is inherently violent~. Edit to add: it’s probably helpful in illustrating the difference to remove political ideology and highlight other movements which have drawn similar conclusions. As an example, in the Civil Rights era, many people trying to effect change according to officially blessed outlets were sprayed with fire hoses, beaten, attacked with dogs, even murdered. Often in plain sight, sometimes symbolically as a warning to others who might follow their lead. Others drew the conclusion that the officially blessed outlets for the change they sought were a facade, that they’d be similarly violently excluded from shaping the world they lived in. Some of them determined that the only way they could achieve any kind of justice was to reserve the right to use force to achieve it. Were they inherently violent?
  - justaguy88 6y ago
    Though we need to carve out some exceptions, like people discussing UFC
- blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  Parler doesn't ban anyone but actual trolls and crazies who post porn, promote commercial content, or post vindictive or violent content. Pretty much the same TOS as most other platforms.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    Trolling isn't free speech?
- ekianjo 6y ago
  > It’s an overtly political platform and clearly for a particular political ideology. You could say exactly the same for Twitter (remember the Hunter Biden laptop story? Of no you don't, because it was censored there), or even Google which clearly de-prioritizes search results based on their ideologies.
mlyle 6y ago
If people on the right want their own social networks, etc, that's fine. But they're going to need to have moderation and keep the violent extremism down. I'm sure there's legitimate, law-abiding users of all of these things that get caught in the crossfire... but if the platforms will not impose a minimal amount of moderation one shouldn't be surprised that others will want to deny them services and business relationships.
- gedy 6y ago
  But they were mostly peaceful too
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
seppin 6y ago
No, but the people not calling for violence probably still have their twitter and facebook accounts so we arent talking about them.
eyelidlessness 6y ago
Basically the whole proposition of parler was that it was a refuge for alt-right/proto-fash/actual-fash who perceive moderation on other platforms to be stifling. Yeah, I’d wager the vast majority of Parler users are either involved in the kinds of shit that finally tipped the scales or giving it safe haven. Even if not, why is Apple or any other organization obligated to host them?
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  No, that was not the proposition of Parler, and it was specifically against the TOS and still is.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    And yet, it’s where the people who value that proposition keep flocking. It’s almost like they understand some subtext about the service and its intent.
  - conception 6y ago
    TOS doesn’t mean anything if they aren’t enforced.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      They are. Go ahead and report something, then let us know how long it stays up. People organize violence on twitter almost every single day.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    If they actually enforced their TOS 90% of their extremist userbase would leave, which is why a post about shooting Mike Pence by one of their most followed users could stay up for days until Apple threatened them.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      “Hang Mike Pence” was trending at the top of twitter. Now what? They’re a pre-series A startup with a very small staff. If people don’t report things, it’s not feasible to expect that they’ll all be actioned. Instead of reporting the post, activists with an agenda thought it better to cherry pick them and attack platforms. A more honest test would have been to report the content and see if they acted on it. But let’s not kid ourselves, this campaign was disingenuous from the beginning. The real goal is to shut down a perceived enemy in the culture war.

mc32 6y ago

What? What does unethical even mean? That's a weasel word. Pelosi lies, Schumer lies, McConnel lies, Trump lies, Biden lies. They all lie. They all cheat too. Are you going to deplatform 99%+ of politicians and 80+ of regular people too?

rootsudo 6y ago
Exactly. What scale, or how do you judge what is a lie? What even is a "lie?" Someone disgruntled that is an USA citizen? That is not an USA Citizen? It's like everyone forgot Politicans jobs are to play the wind, say the right words, garner support and always stay in the limelight of what society thinks they "represent." I've been reading old newspaper articles/time magazines from the 1940s-70's and it's amazing how different the world itself, from media really represents and how these companies all join together on a message such as this.
pmiller2 6y ago
Why not? Deplatform all the politicians -- at least the 95% who actively lie and work against the interests of the American people. While we're at it, kick them out of Washington on their asses. Nothing of value will be lost.
- smsm42 6y ago
  That's not how it works. Instead, politicians are deplatforming what they want. You don't control the process, they do. Even if in the moment they deplatform people that you dislike, never think you have any control over it.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    If Donald Trump holds a press conference and nobody comes, does it make a sound?
    - smsm42 6y ago
      A better question is - do you think current politicians are so perfect that you can trust them with controlling who can and can not have press conferences? Surely they would never abuse it for any other ends when they're done with Donald Trump!

centimeter 6y ago

> Political ideology that is unethical deserves no platform I like the implication that ~half the country is just blanket "unethical" and doesn't deserve to speak.

pmiller2 6y ago
I'm pretty okay with silencing racism, fascism, nationalism, and misogynism, myself. How about you?
- smsm42 6y ago
  I'm pretty not okay with silencing everybody that anybody can call "racism", provided that pretty much anything nowdays can be called racist - from Abraham Lincoln (https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/university/uw-madison-students-call-for-removal-of-abraham-lincoln-statue-on-bascom-hill/article_b12c83c9-38a1-5e68-9964-beabe4046d02.html https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/university/uw-m...) to yoga (https://www.foxnews.com/us/americans-who-practice-yoga-contribute-to-white-supremacy-michigan-state-university-professor-claims https://www.foxnews.com/us/americans-who-practice-yoga-contr...). Sorry, can't find a "z" one, but I'm sure somebody somewhere called it racist too. So no, I'm not OK with banning everything from Abraham Lincoln to yoga.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Zionism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl... You're welcome. I'm pretty okay with the Abe Lincoln angle, but the yoga article is ridiculously fringe thinking that nobody could possibly take seriously.
    - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
      Zoroastrianism?
      - 6y ago

seppin 6y ago

Exactly. By calling all the filth and calls for violence on Parler "conservative", you really aren't helping your metrics in trying to win elections in the future.

rootsudo 6y ago

Because, The political Ideology of the United States already does not do that? Why do you think we have a Military? Why do you think we have a criminal system? Why do you think we have Justice and Courts? The whole creation of the United States was unethical because every citizen was of the British Crown and were traitors. Or, are you not aware of your history and that this de platforming is only making the other side message much more stronger. It really is eye-widening how many people fail to see the consequence of removing a service, and how it hinders intelligence, counter intelligence and general observation.

rvz 6y ago
> Or, are you not aware of your history and that this de platforming is only making the other side message much more stronger. This is the point that supporters of de-platforming fail to recognise. They preach "Build your own platform" yet they still persist to de-platform until the target cannot be de-platformed off the internet. After all their efforts, Gab is still alive since they are self-hosted and once Parler is taken off of AWS, they will open more Gab accounts. I can only see that it will either lead to Gab receiving a wave of new users from Parler or these ex-Parler users will start creating encrypted group chats on Telegram or Signal which also cannot be taken down.
- alphabettsy 6y ago
  The point is to make it significantly more difficult to recruit and spread. Doesn’t change the people who are already committed, but probably prevents people from discovering it.

waffle_ss 6y ago

What does that even mean? Obama literally had his own drone kill list; he personally authorized the drone-execution of multiple American citizens abroad without trial. Yet much more than keeping Twitter access, he got a Nobel peace prize. "Unethical" is a post-hoc rationalization; what we're seeing now goes much deeper than that.

shripadk 6y ago

You do realise that this is the exact behaviour that caused such a deep divide in the first place? You have already decided that half of the World is unethical and deserves no platform. Just because we support a political ideology that you do not agree with? Wow! And I thought you guys are the free speech advocates!

arolihas 6y ago
I don't think Parler represented half of the country’s political ideology. At least I hope not.
- shripadk 6y ago
  You make it seem like Parler only had violent posts. I hope you don't club every member of Parler with violent extremists. And I'm talking about conservative/right wing ideology. Not Parler specifically. Because if Big Tech is taking a moral high ground I hope it can apply the same policies to itself. Let's start with Twitter shall we? How about this 2018 post: https://twitter.com/MadamePete/status/1017462143279681541?s=19 https://twitter.com/MadamePete/status/1017462143279681541?s=... What has Twitter done to take it down? 2019 post: https://twitter.com/jcmithnoy/status/1085855272793366529?s=19 https://twitter.com/jcmithnoy/status/1085855272793366529?s=1... 2016 post: https://twitter.com/lil_cmb/status/765737247781949444?s=19 https://twitter.com/lil_cmb/status/765737247781949444?s=19 2018 post: https://twitter.com/DutchessOfDork/status/1005538609032769536?s=19 https://twitter.com/DutchessOfDork/status/100553860903276953... Can I say that just because you are on Twitter you represent a political ideology aligned with the lunatics above? Looking at the tweets above can I say "I hope Twitter doesn't represent half of the country's ideology. I hope not". This is the biggest irony of it all. Twitter openly bans right wing accounts while not doing anything to these violent posts by left wingers. you have toxicity in both Parler and Twitter. The only difference is that the right wing toxicity that existed in Twitter shifted to Parler while the left wing toxicity remained behind in Twitter itself. This is balkanization. This isn't solving the problem in any way, shape or form.
  - aluminum96 6y ago