6 ms·

Pretty much anyone with any intelligence can determine this, in particular, is harmful to society. This situation isn't just "someone bad saying nice things" an

by prh8 6y ago

Pretty much anyone with any intelligence can determine this, in particular, is harmful to society. This situation isn't just "someone bad saying nice things" and to suggest that is completely disingenuous.

cal5k 6y ago
I've looked at Parler - while I don't find the content at all compelling, it doesn't seem any more dangerous than Twitter. Have we forgotten the truly odious content that was freely available on Twitter during last summer's riots?
- prh8 6y ago
  I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion when Parler has been specifically used to plan more violence this week, after many of the people involved have been booted from Twitter.
  - AuryGlenz 6y ago
    And Twitter (along with Reddit and Facebook) wasn’t used to plan violence during the protests last summer?
    - alisonkisk 6y ago
      No, it wasn't.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - CodeShmode 6y ago
      Show us the BLM tweet equivalent of "We need to systematically start assassinating Liberal leaders"
      - ImprovedSilence 6y ago
        well... there's a #killallcops. I'm sure a quick googling could find you plenty more.. : https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallcops?lang=en https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallcops?lang=en
        CodeShmode 6y ago
        Would you consider that hashtag to have serious intent to incite people to commit acts of violence?
        ImprovedSilence 6y ago
        The same level of seriousness as any other violence condoning call. In that its hard to gauge intent and willingness to follow through vs. “just saying it”..? where do you draw the line? Do you let one group call for un mitigated violence against a group of people, but not another group, just because you personally dont believe they are serious, even if it might inspire other to take action..?
        CodeShmode 6y ago
        Yes, context is important. If someone makes a call to violence that is not intended to be taken seriously and is not at risk of being taken seriously that is different from making a call to violence in the hope that someone picks it up at a time when people are likely to act on it. There is a test for this decided at the supreme court level: inciteful speech can only be prohibited if the speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action."
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - prh8 6y ago
    The summer violence is not equitable to what's being planned on Parler. This is not run of the mill shit going on.
- muglug 6y ago
  Is it still available today? If it has since been removed, that's due to moderation!
- kordlessagain 6y ago
  So you signed up for Parler and gave them your drivers license?
  - Natsu 6y ago
    That's only if you want to be verified (i.e. like a blue checkmark on Twitter). I installed it long ago to see what all the fuss was and never used it and didn't give them a damn thing.
- HDMI_Cable 6y ago
  One major difference though, is that Parler (right now) only really hosts said dangerous content, while Twitter is >99% innocent.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    Parler sprang up as a reaction to widespread deplatforming of both mainstream conservatives and violent radicals. What this achieves in practice is giving violent extremists a platform where they're free to radicalize ("redpill") moderate conservatives who've even been primed (via deplatforming) to distrust mainstream media and seek alternate sources of information. It's the opposite of what you want if you care about re-unifying the political landscape around rejection of violent extremism.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Can you give an example of a mainstream conservative who didn't advocate for violence who was deplatformed?
    - bra-ket 6y ago
      I think the best plan of action is creating a new decentralized free speech platform, as resilient as a cockroach, blockchain or scihub. I’ve sent a message to sama & pg asking to add this to the YC list of ‘requests for startups’. I hope they hear. For those lurking, this is a tremendous opportunity and real need as you have half the country desperate to let their voice be heard while being aggressively silenced and de-platformed for political reasons. You can have a monopoly on free speech.. just kidding , purely decentralized. Hit me up with your hot ideas and Go chops.
      - alexggordon 6y ago
        I disagree with this. This might be a solution, but it is not "the" solution. I really, truly believe that any startup idea has to pass the child pornography test. Most B2C companies have to deal with this at some point if they allow user to user interaction. A decentralized platform as advocated for could not survive if it's not capable of censuring things. You have to censure for child pornography--it's illegal to host it. Court actions around torrents have held that the sites hosting them are not decentralized--The Pirate Bay is at fault for hosting illegally obtained content. Same thing with this--as long as hosting child pornography is illegal (and it should be, not debating that) you won't have a mainstream "decentralized" social media site[0]. This follows for all the other stuff that's going on. Inciting violence is illegal. That, plain and simple, is why Trump was removed from Twitter. Twitter even waited until his violence actually killed people. Even Parler recognizes this[1] and has started censuring, because it could be sued into the ground for inciting violence. If you think that there's a technological solution for this problem--you're missing the bigger picture. Big social media tech _loves_ this stuff--people talk about it all day--they even donate to the groups that help organize it[2]. We're not missing a technological solution--we're missing a legislative one. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/02/parler-pornography-problem/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/02/parler-... [1] https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/09/parler-reportedly-removed-posts-by-trump-affiliate-lin-wood-calling-for-execution-of-vp-mike-pence/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/09/parler-reportedly-removed-... [2] https://documented.net/2021/01/republican-attorneys-general-dark-money-group-organized-protest-preceding-capitol-mob-attack/ https://documented.net/2021/01/republican-attorneys-general-...
- Natsu 6y ago
  What about right now? "Hang Mike Pence" has been trending lately. I don't like anyone promoting violence.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    And stuff like #killallmen and #killallcops was trending for months, but nobody banned Twitter from their infrastructure.
    - objectivetruth 6y ago
      Nobody subsequently tried to kill all the men nor all the cops, so nobody felt the need to ban Twitter. People actually did storm the US Capitol in at attempt to execute Mike Pence, among other elected leaders. So it's, you know, different.
- rvz 6y ago
  Most people here already have instantly forgotten about the planned action of millions of dollars worth of damage and looting of businesses and federal buildings that were burned down during the summer riots with BLM and Antifa inciting violence during the run up to the elections last year which the content is still freely available on Twitter with it being hosted on AWS. So I do not see how Twitter is any different to Parler here if I can still find both of this content (and the users responsible) on their platforms. Perhaps the moderation on Twitter has a bias to one camp or its users have a heavy bias to only reporting the content that they think 'violates the ToS'. The fact is, both social networking sites here have this content hosted on AWS and either have a poor or a bias in moderation of this content.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    To resolve this whataboutism, I'd be perfectly fine with banning Twitter until they improved their moderation practices. But it's whataboutism nevertheless, no?
    - agiroth 6y ago
      Amazon made the decision to change that calculation and in this case, whataboutism is perfectly valid.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I can't speak for everyone, but I haven't forgotten about those things and was arguing at the time that much of that rhetoric needed to be shut down. I do wish that internet platforms would consistently shut down everyone who plans violence, but I'm hardly gonna say that this violence should be allowed just because other kinds were allowed in the past.
- zanek 6y ago
  People are literally planning to murder other people on Parler but you don't find the content compelling ? There are tons of posts like this on Parler. This isnt a slippery slope, they arent moderating at all https://twitter.com/IntelDoge/status/1348099918381068289 https://twitter.com/IntelDoge/status/1348099918381068289
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
anoncake 6y ago
The question is not if Amazon made the right decision in this case but if they can be trusted to make it in general.
- prh8 6y ago
  That question is only applicable if you equate this extreme current situation with something incredibly bland and normal.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - anoncake 6y ago
    What is a situation that's both bland and incredible supposed to look like?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- agiroth 6y ago
  Exactly because right now, between Apple, Google and AWS, several billion people have had a decision made for them. That looks like government behavior to me.
ImprovedSilence 6y ago
I think them getting booted is a slippery slope. Much better to have things like this in plain sight. Think about how much harder it would be to identify people storming the capitol w/o their social media platforms... Either way, it's great when "they" are harmful to society. I'm not so sure it's not possible to end up on the wrong side of that gun down the road when "they" define "harmful"... I'm also curious as to what AWS's stance is regarding ISIS or radical militants in other regions of the world. I genuinely don't know the answer here.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure they can't legally do business with ISIS.
- dlp211 6y ago
  These groups are only able to organize and recruit at this scale because of these platforms.
notsureaboutpg 6y ago
The Communist Manifesto is harmful to society. It contains many explicit calls for a specific group of people to commit violence against another specific group of people. And yet, we shouldn't ban it off the Internet, it's a very valuable piece of information to have out there.
WindyLakeReturn 6y ago
>Pretty much anyone with any intelligence can determine this This seems to be another way of saying 'if you don't agree with this view, you are likely stupid'. That's not a great opening, and in general if one finds themselves thinking their view is the only intelligent one, they should consider it a sign they are only considering a strawman of alternatives and not the real views held.

by prh8 6y ago

cal5k 6y ago

I've looked at Parler - while I don't find the content at all compelling, it doesn't seem any more dangerous than Twitter. Have we forgotten the truly odious content that was freely available on Twitter during last summer's riots?

prh8 6y ago
I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion when Parler has been specifically used to plan more violence this week, after many of the people involved have been booted from Twitter.
- AuryGlenz 6y ago
  And Twitter (along with Reddit and Facebook) wasn’t used to plan violence during the protests last summer?
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    No, it wasn't.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - CodeShmode 6y ago
    Show us the BLM tweet equivalent of "We need to systematically start assassinating Liberal leaders"
    - ImprovedSilence 6y ago
      well... there's a #killallcops. I'm sure a quick googling could find you plenty more.. : https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallcops?lang=en https://twitter.com/hashtag/killallcops?lang=en
      - CodeShmode 6y ago
        Would you consider that hashtag to have serious intent to incite people to commit acts of violence?
        ImprovedSilence 6y ago
        The same level of seriousness as any other violence condoning call. In that its hard to gauge intent and willingness to follow through vs. “just saying it”..? where do you draw the line? Do you let one group call for un mitigated violence against a group of people, but not another group, just because you personally dont believe they are serious, even if it might inspire other to take action..?
        CodeShmode 6y ago
        Yes, context is important. If someone makes a call to violence that is not intended to be taken seriously and is not at risk of being taken seriously that is different from making a call to violence in the hope that someone picks it up at a time when people are likely to act on it. There is a test for this decided at the supreme court level: inciteful speech can only be prohibited if the speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action."
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- prh8 6y ago
  The summer violence is not equitable to what's being planned on Parler. This is not run of the mill shit going on.
muglug 6y ago
Is it still available today? If it has since been removed, that's due to moderation!
kordlessagain 6y ago
So you signed up for Parler and gave them your drivers license?
- Natsu 6y ago
  That's only if you want to be verified (i.e. like a blue checkmark on Twitter). I installed it long ago to see what all the fuss was and never used it and didn't give them a damn thing.
HDMI_Cable 6y ago
One major difference though, is that Parler (right now) only really hosts said dangerous content, while Twitter is >99% innocent.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  Parler sprang up as a reaction to widespread deplatforming of both mainstream conservatives and violent radicals. What this achieves in practice is giving violent extremists a platform where they're free to radicalize ("redpill") moderate conservatives who've even been primed (via deplatforming) to distrust mainstream media and seek alternate sources of information. It's the opposite of what you want if you care about re-unifying the political landscape around rejection of violent extremism.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Can you give an example of a mainstream conservative who didn't advocate for violence who was deplatformed?
  - bra-ket 6y ago
    I think the best plan of action is creating a new decentralized free speech platform, as resilient as a cockroach, blockchain or scihub. I’ve sent a message to sama & pg asking to add this to the YC list of ‘requests for startups’. I hope they hear. For those lurking, this is a tremendous opportunity and real need as you have half the country desperate to let their voice be heard while being aggressively silenced and de-platformed for political reasons. You can have a monopoly on free speech.. just kidding , purely decentralized. Hit me up with your hot ideas and Go chops.
    - alexggordon 6y ago
      I disagree with this. This might be a solution, but it is not "the" solution. I really, truly believe that any startup idea has to pass the child pornography test. Most B2C companies have to deal with this at some point if they allow user to user interaction. A decentralized platform as advocated for could not survive if it's not capable of censuring things. You have to censure for child pornography--it's illegal to host it. Court actions around torrents have held that the sites hosting them are not decentralized--The Pirate Bay is at fault for hosting illegally obtained content. Same thing with this--as long as hosting child pornography is illegal (and it should be, not debating that) you won't have a mainstream "decentralized" social media site[0]. This follows for all the other stuff that's going on. Inciting violence is illegal. That, plain and simple, is why Trump was removed from Twitter. Twitter even waited until his violence actually killed people. Even Parler recognizes this[1] and has started censuring, because it could be sued into the ground for inciting violence. If you think that there's a technological solution for this problem--you're missing the bigger picture. Big social media tech _loves_ this stuff--people talk about it all day--they even donate to the groups that help organize it[2]. We're not missing a technological solution--we're missing a legislative one. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/02/parler-pornography-problem/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/02/parler-... [1] https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/09/parler-reportedly-removed-posts-by-trump-affiliate-lin-wood-calling-for-execution-of-vp-mike-pence/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/09/parler-reportedly-removed-... [2] https://documented.net/2021/01/republican-attorneys-general-dark-money-group-organized-protest-preceding-capitol-mob-attack/ https://documented.net/2021/01/republican-attorneys-general-...
Natsu 6y ago
What about right now? "Hang Mike Pence" has been trending lately. I don't like anyone promoting violence.
- logicchains 6y ago
  And stuff like #killallmen and #killallcops was trending for months, but nobody banned Twitter from their infrastructure.
  - objectivetruth 6y ago
    Nobody subsequently tried to kill all the men nor all the cops, so nobody felt the need to ban Twitter. People actually did storm the US Capitol in at attempt to execute Mike Pence, among other elected leaders. So it's, you know, different.
rvz 6y ago
Most people here already have instantly forgotten about the planned action of millions of dollars worth of damage and looting of businesses and federal buildings that were burned down during the summer riots with BLM and Antifa inciting violence during the run up to the elections last year which the content is still freely available on Twitter with it being hosted on AWS. So I do not see how Twitter is any different to Parler here if I can still find both of this content (and the users responsible) on their platforms. Perhaps the moderation on Twitter has a bias to one camp or its users have a heavy bias to only reporting the content that they think 'violates the ToS'. The fact is, both social networking sites here have this content hosted on AWS and either have a poor or a bias in moderation of this content.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  To resolve this whataboutism, I'd be perfectly fine with banning Twitter until they improved their moderation practices. But it's whataboutism nevertheless, no?
  - agiroth 6y ago
    Amazon made the decision to change that calculation and in this case, whataboutism is perfectly valid.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I can't speak for everyone, but I haven't forgotten about those things and was arguing at the time that much of that rhetoric needed to be shut down. I do wish that internet platforms would consistently shut down everyone who plans violence, but I'm hardly gonna say that this violence should be allowed just because other kinds were allowed in the past.
zanek 6y ago
People are literally planning to murder other people on Parler but you don't find the content compelling ? There are tons of posts like this on Parler. This isnt a slippery slope, they arent moderating at all https://twitter.com/IntelDoge/status/1348099918381068289 https://twitter.com/IntelDoge/status/1348099918381068289
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

anoncake 6y ago

The question is not if Amazon made the right decision in this case but if they can be trusted to make it in general.

prh8 6y ago
That question is only applicable if you equate this extreme current situation with something incredibly bland and normal.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- anoncake 6y ago
  What is a situation that's both bland and incredible supposed to look like?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
agiroth 6y ago
Exactly because right now, between Apple, Google and AWS, several billion people have had a decision made for them. That looks like government behavior to me.

ImprovedSilence 6y ago

I think them getting booted is a slippery slope. Much better to have things like this in plain sight. Think about how much harder it would be to identify people storming the capitol w/o their social media platforms... Either way, it's great when "they" are harmful to society. I'm not so sure it's not possible to end up on the wrong side of that gun down the road when "they" define "harmful"... I'm also curious as to what AWS's stance is regarding ISIS or radical militants in other regions of the world. I genuinely don't know the answer here.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
I'm pretty sure they can't legally do business with ISIS.
dlp211 6y ago
These groups are only able to organize and recruit at this scale because of these platforms.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago

The Communist Manifesto is harmful to society. It contains many explicit calls for a specific group of people to commit violence against another specific group of people. And yet, we shouldn't ban it off the Internet, it's a very valuable piece of information to have out there.

WindyLakeReturn 6y ago

>Pretty much anyone with any intelligence can determine this This seems to be another way of saying 'if you don't agree with this view, you are likely stupid'. That's not a great opening, and in general if one finds themselves thinking their view is the only intelligent one, they should consider it a sign they are only considering a strawman of alternatives and not the real views held.