3 ms·

I don't think that anyone on Hacker News is confusing between government and private entities by now. We have seen that exact argument hundreds of times. My an

by NhanH 6y ago

I don't think that anyone on Hacker News is confusing between government and private entities by now. We have seen that exact argument hundreds of times. My answer was to the question of how "society" should handle the situation. I fully understand that the companies are free to do what they want. And I believe that as capitalistic entities, they would not have cut off paying customer without pressure from a large segment of society. I just believe that segment was wrong in pressuring the companies to do so. Again, I understand that it is also their (those who wants Parler to have no platform) rights to free speech. I just happen to think that it is the wrong way of approaching this situation. Edit: if it was a single company removing the Parler community (similar to how Reddit was kicking off alot of subreddit a couple of years ago). I think I would be a lot more inclined with your line of reasoning. It's the coordinated action from too many sides that made me feel uncomfortable with how this happened.

bborud 6y ago
So my freedom to choose with whom I would like to do business is not for me to decide, but is contingent on who else does not want to do business with them? Implying that if nobody wants to do business with them I am no longer free to make free choices?
- NhanH 6y ago
  I never said companies are not free to make choices. I said it was a bad choice.
  - bborud 6y ago
    So providing a platform for others to incite violence and ending democracy is a good choice? I do hope you appreciate that this question stopped being a purely academic question four days ago and became the very real death of five people and the closest the US has come to a coup d’detat in a very, very long time? The decisions to de-platform the United States president and the angry mob is not something any service provider wants or would do lightly. These are the hardest decisions many of these companies will make this decade. Is it the best decision in this situation? We won’t know for years. Was it a good decision? Yes. And it was one that took courage. I’m glad someone had the courage to make that decision.
    - NhanH 6y ago
      After thinking it through a bit more, I will concede that there is a reasonbly high chance I was wrong with my insistence on absolutely keeping principles being more important than dealing with actual demonstrated bad actors. As long as this doesn't lead to a slippery slope of more censorship (both by the state and private entities), and more power to non due-process witch hunt, I would be wrong. I don't think there are a way any of us can say for certain what will happen, so let's wait a couple of years and see how it turn out.

by NhanH 6y ago

bborud 6y ago

So my freedom to choose with whom I would like to do business is not for me to decide, but is contingent on who else does not want to do business with them? Implying that if nobody wants to do business with them I am no longer free to make free choices?

NhanH 6y ago
I never said companies are not free to make choices. I said it was a bad choice.
- bborud 6y ago
  So providing a platform for others to incite violence and ending democracy is a good choice? I do hope you appreciate that this question stopped being a purely academic question four days ago and became the very real death of five people and the closest the US has come to a coup d’detat in a very, very long time? The decisions to de-platform the United States president and the angry mob is not something any service provider wants or would do lightly. These are the hardest decisions many of these companies will make this decade. Is it the best decision in this situation? We won’t know for years. Was it a good decision? Yes. And it was one that took courage. I’m glad someone had the courage to make that decision.
  - NhanH 6y ago
    After thinking it through a bit more, I will concede that there is a reasonbly high chance I was wrong with my insistence on absolutely keeping principles being more important than dealing with actual demonstrated bad actors. As long as this doesn't lead to a slippery slope of more censorship (both by the state and private entities), and more power to non due-process witch hunt, I would be wrong. I don't think there are a way any of us can say for certain what will happen, so let's wait a couple of years and see how it turn out.