8 ms·

Apple and Google just censored a whole social network. How can you claim it is just "people calling for violence"? It's the oldest excuse in the book. And exac

Apple and Google just censored a whole social network. How can you claim it is just "people calling for violence"? It's the oldest excuse in the book. And exactly why universal free speech is needed. Because otherwise that same excuse will be made every time. Alternatively, I guess there simply will never be free speech and people will always have to fight to get heard.

iamacyborg 6y ago
A social network that hosts terrorist content.
- bboygravity 6y ago
  Every social network ever in the history of humanity has hosted terrorist content. Also any opinion ever in the history of humanity could be interpreted as being "terrorist content" by someone. Are you seriously implying we should be going back to a modern version of book burning? I just can't get my head around how apparently the majority of people seems to be back at "censorship is good", us good they bad.
  - diveanon 6y ago
    What is and what is not protected speech has been pretty clearly defined over the years. Honestly though it doesn't matter because these are private companies. Parler has failed to moderate extremist content and is acting as a platform for radicalizing new users. Apple, Google, Amazon, and Twitter have a decided independently that the lost revenue and maga tears are worth not having to host far right terrorists. Parler can host itself if it wants, nobody has made it illegal to be a gaping asshole.
diveanon 6y ago
They didn't censor anything, they chose not to host it. Parler made choices as a product to host virulent seditionist rhetoric without moderation and are facing the consequences. If they had structured their product and infrastructure better, and made an attempt to moderate themselves they wouldn't be in this position.
- fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
  Choosing not to host it because of the content. Of course it is censorship. That people can perhaps publish their opinions somewhere else does not imply that it is not censorship.
  - diveanon 6y ago
    They didn't touch their content, they just made a choice as a business not to allow it on their platform. Free market capitalism's a bitch right?
    - fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
      Not sure what you are going on about. Yes, they can do that. Nobody denies that. Doesn't mean everybody has to like it.
      - diveanon 6y ago
        You liking it or not isn't relevant. Take your half baked understanding of the first amendment somewhere else.
        fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
        I didn't even mention the first amendment. Stop attacking other people for things that you hallucinate.
nedudal 6y ago
And you decided to roll your head over your keyboard to spread lies.
- fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
  What lies?
  - nedudal 6y ago
    All of them.
    - fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
      So none. Thank you for conceding.
Jonnax 6y ago
Apple and Google are private companies. It is their platform. Free speech is freedom from the government not private companies. It's just pure entitlement. Users can install alternative app stores or apps directly on Android phones. Or even they could buy a Linux phone like the PinePhone and install whatever they want. But no, they want the audiences built by private companies. It's funny how those who decry communism so much want state control of businesses. And to note, users on Parler are advocating blowing up AWS data centers: https://twitter.com/JohnPaczkowski/status/1348113828324667396?s=20 https://twitter.com/JohnPaczkowski/status/134811382832466739...
- fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
  I never said Apple or Google are not entitled to censor stuff. I fully support the rights of private companies to do that. People are also entitled to be critical of such moves and to look for alternatives. That's all. What if Google would openly support fascism. Would you also defend their right to do so, because they are a private company? Would you happily continue to use their products? Or would you prefer to have an alternative?
  - Jonnax 6y ago
    "And exactly why universal free speech is needed. Because otherwise that same excuse will be made every time." What is universal free speech except a desire to have the government dictate what companies can have on their platform? If Google supported fascism, yes, I would want an alternative. I wouldn't support them. I would sell my phone. I wouldn't be surprised if they started removing apps that didn't conform to their ideology. But here's the thing. This social network does not moderate people posting about killing their political enemies. I would not defend your hypothetical Google's right to support a hateful ideology.
    - fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
      100% sure that is bullshit. It is already illegal to call for somebody to be killed. If that was a major thing on Parler, it would be a case for the police, not for the Google mods. Edit: with "universal free speech" I just mean it has to be legal to say things. I am not generally in favor of regulating companies. At the moment they are mostly regulated to censor stuff, though. While I think it also agrees with their own ideology (see Zuckerberg's personal statement), governments have also threatened the social networks if they don't cenor according to the wishes of the governments. (I know about the hate speech laws in Germany, not sure what is the current state of affair in the US).
manicdee 6y ago
Parler was set up specifically to provide a place where Trump supporters could discuss sedition, terrorism, and make plans to prevent a handover of power in the case that Trump lost the election. It is common for people to get banned from Parler for things as simple as questioning the evidence “supporting” various conspiracy theories. So don’t complain when the entire site gets taken offline due to breaching various terms of service regarding “do not use our platform for terrorism.”
- fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
  If discussing sedition is so bad, how do you feel about the leftists who proposed a #Calexit when Trump came to power? Pretty sure if people would discuss terrorism on Parler, it would be a case for the police, not for Parler mods. As for the "see who gets banned on Parler" argument, isn't it always a bad argument to say "but they are just as bad as we are"? I'd say that aspect is irrelevant to the discussion (I mean the banning behavior of Parler), as we are discussing the actions of Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Google and Amazon, not of Parler.

iamacyborg 6y ago

A social network that hosts terrorist content.

bboygravity 6y ago
Every social network ever in the history of humanity has hosted terrorist content. Also any opinion ever in the history of humanity could be interpreted as being "terrorist content" by someone. Are you seriously implying we should be going back to a modern version of book burning? I just can't get my head around how apparently the majority of people seems to be back at "censorship is good", us good they bad.
- diveanon 6y ago
  What is and what is not protected speech has been pretty clearly defined over the years. Honestly though it doesn't matter because these are private companies. Parler has failed to moderate extremist content and is acting as a platform for radicalizing new users. Apple, Google, Amazon, and Twitter have a decided independently that the lost revenue and maga tears are worth not having to host far right terrorists. Parler can host itself if it wants, nobody has made it illegal to be a gaping asshole.

diveanon 6y ago

They didn't censor anything, they chose not to host it. Parler made choices as a product to host virulent seditionist rhetoric without moderation and are facing the consequences. If they had structured their product and infrastructure better, and made an attempt to moderate themselves they wouldn't be in this position.

fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
Choosing not to host it because of the content. Of course it is censorship. That people can perhaps publish their opinions somewhere else does not imply that it is not censorship.
- diveanon 6y ago
  They didn't touch their content, they just made a choice as a business not to allow it on their platform. Free market capitalism's a bitch right?
  - fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
    Not sure what you are going on about. Yes, they can do that. Nobody denies that. Doesn't mean everybody has to like it.
    - diveanon 6y ago
      You liking it or not isn't relevant. Take your half baked understanding of the first amendment somewhere else.
      - fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
        I didn't even mention the first amendment. Stop attacking other people for things that you hallucinate.

nedudal 6y ago

And you decided to roll your head over your keyboard to spread lies.

fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
What lies?
- nedudal 6y ago
  All of them.
  - fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
    So none. Thank you for conceding.

Jonnax 6y ago

Apple and Google are private companies. It is their platform. Free speech is freedom from the government not private companies. It's just pure entitlement. Users can install alternative app stores or apps directly on Android phones. Or even they could buy a Linux phone like the PinePhone and install whatever they want. But no, they want the audiences built by private companies. It's funny how those who decry communism so much want state control of businesses. And to note, users on Parler are advocating blowing up AWS data centers: https://twitter.com/JohnPaczkowski/status/1348113828324667396?s=20 https://twitter.com/JohnPaczkowski/status/134811382832466739...

fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
I never said Apple or Google are not entitled to censor stuff. I fully support the rights of private companies to do that. People are also entitled to be critical of such moves and to look for alternatives. That's all. What if Google would openly support fascism. Would you also defend their right to do so, because they are a private company? Would you happily continue to use their products? Or would you prefer to have an alternative?
- Jonnax 6y ago
  "And exactly why universal free speech is needed. Because otherwise that same excuse will be made every time." What is universal free speech except a desire to have the government dictate what companies can have on their platform? If Google supported fascism, yes, I would want an alternative. I wouldn't support them. I would sell my phone. I wouldn't be surprised if they started removing apps that didn't conform to their ideology. But here's the thing. This social network does not moderate people posting about killing their political enemies. I would not defend your hypothetical Google's right to support a hateful ideology.
  - fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
    100% sure that is bullshit. It is already illegal to call for somebody to be killed. If that was a major thing on Parler, it would be a case for the police, not for the Google mods. Edit: with "universal free speech" I just mean it has to be legal to say things. I am not generally in favor of regulating companies. At the moment they are mostly regulated to censor stuff, though. While I think it also agrees with their own ideology (see Zuckerberg's personal statement), governments have also threatened the social networks if they don't cenor according to the wishes of the governments. (I know about the hate speech laws in Germany, not sure what is the current state of affair in the US).

manicdee 6y ago

Parler was set up specifically to provide a place where Trump supporters could discuss sedition, terrorism, and make plans to prevent a handover of power in the case that Trump lost the election. It is common for people to get banned from Parler for things as simple as questioning the evidence “supporting” various conspiracy theories. So don’t complain when the entire site gets taken offline due to breaching various terms of service regarding “do not use our platform for terrorism.”

fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
If discussing sedition is so bad, how do you feel about the leftists who proposed a #Calexit when Trump came to power? Pretty sure if people would discuss terrorism on Parler, it would be a case for the police, not for Parler mods. As for the "see who gets banned on Parler" argument, isn't it always a bad argument to say "but they are just as bad as we are"? I'd say that aspect is irrelevant to the discussion (I mean the banning behavior of Parler), as we are discussing the actions of Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Google and Amazon, not of Parler.