7 ms·

To be fair, it's probably hard for a network like Parler to attract top talent. I mean, they explicitly advertised themselves as the "free speech social network

by rob74 6y ago

To be fair, it's probably hard for a network like Parler to attract top talent. I mean, they explicitly advertised themselves as the "free speech social network" (i.e. "all hate speech welcome, we won't censor anyone except maybe Trump parody accounts") - would you want to work for such a company, or have it on your resume in the future?

RHSeeger 6y ago
> would you want to work for such a company, or have it on your resume in the future And even if you did want to work for such a company, the impact on your resume in the future along might be enough to deter you.
thu2111 6y ago
Jack Dorsey: "We are the free speech wing of the free speech party" Mark Zuckerberg: "Trump says Facebook is against him, liberals say we helped Trump. Both sides are upset about ideas and content they don’t like. That’s what running a platform for all ideas looks like.” Matt Cutts: "We don't condone the practice of googlebombing, or any other action that seeks to affect the integrity of our search results, but we're also reluctant to alter our results by hand in order to prevent such items from showing up"
NikolaeVarius 6y ago
Yes? I wouldn't work for Parler, but I fail to see how the phrase "free speech social network" should elicit some negative emotion. Parler sucks because they are a haven to right wing extremists, not because of their marketing. Its like being angry at Signal because their encryption allows terrorists communicate securely.
- shuntress 6y ago
  The description "free speech social network" is very heavily associated with far right extremists. Much like, for example, the gadsden flag.
  - edoceo 6y ago
    The yellow field, "don't tread on me" banner. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag
  - jackhack 6y ago
    if free speech is only for the enemy, I fear what victory looks like.
    - jodrellblank 6y ago
      Someone recommends you some games, about one they say "it has a simulated theme park with intricate rollercoaster building engine and you compete with other theme parks for customers", about another they say "you're trying to build a rocket to the moon but it's really challenging", and about another they say "the interface responds to mouse clicks". "if a working interface is only for bad games, I fear what good games look like" Good games have working interfaces too, but they have a lot more worth talking about.
- TomSwirly 6y ago
  > I fail to see how the phrase "free speech social network" should elicit some negative emotion. Can you name a "free speech social network" that isn't overrun by white supremacists and Nazis? It turns out that if you prioritize free speech, then the people who congregate on your site are mostly those with beliefs that are sufficiently repugnant that decent humans don't want to be associated with them.
- rob74 6y ago
  Well, free speech is a good thing, if done responsibly. In practice though, "free speech" as used by Parler means no moderation at all, so the most blatant lies and the craziest conspiracy theories can run unchecked. And since mainstream platforms are cracking down on extremists, your platform will inevitably become a haven (and echo chamber) for them, even if you didn't intend to be one.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    As others have pointed out, yes they did moderate, just for different things.
  - WalterSear 6y ago
    There was/is extremely heavy moderation on Parler.
    - andromeduck 6y ago
      Yeah I checked it out for a bit a few days after it launched, scrolled around for 10-20 min to see if it'd turn out like twitter, 8chan, or the_donald in terms of discussion and it was really weird. IDK how to even describe it other than that it seemed to have that MLM esque or truman show vibe where everything seemed strangely personal but also really shallow and performative? None of the discussions I saw felt natural. It was all super identity focused with very little policy discussion let alone material disagreement.
- jimcsharp 6y ago
  Everywhere I go, I feel like I have free speech by default. I suppose it's my privilege that I feel like that, but I digress. When free speech is explicitly advertised, it smells.
  - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
    Yes, this, exactly. It's sad that "free speech" currently feels like a dog whistle for the alt right, but it's disingenuous to ignore the reality that social media sites and forums that have sprung up in the last few years explicitly advertising this have very much been going after an explicitly far right audience. The explicit promise is "we won't suppress your speech like those other platforms do," but Twitter, Facebook, et. al., demonstrably suppress very little speech: there are high-profile cases of people who have been kicked off after repeated warnings, but that's not actually the same claim. The real promise of Parler and friends is "you'll be surrounded by people who agree with you, unlike those other platforms." (There are lots of anecdotes of individual users who get temporary bans on Twitter for political speech, but I have heard those anecdotes across the political spectrum. I suspect conservatives grumpy at Twitter would be very surprised how much left-wing discourse there is about how Twitter protects TERFs, how they pay lip service to banning Nazis but don't really do it, how Jack Dorsey is probably a crypto-fascist, and so on. The parallel -- "I know of people who agree with me who have been moderated and people who disagree with me who have not, ergo Twitter is obviously biased in favor of The Other Side" -- is kind of fascinating.)
    - ryandrake 6y ago
      I agree the “free speech” label has been taken over by these content-outcasts and turned into a dog whistle. Today, if a platform markets itself as “The Free Speech version of X” it seems to always mean “The platform that hosts only content so bad it’s banned from X”.
- tzs 6y ago
  Almost everything on Parler and similar sites that is not explicit calls to violence against specific targets and does not call describe black people using the n-word and does not talk about things like how the Nazis were right when it comes to Jews could be posted on Reddit in /r/conservative without violating any rules of the subreddit or of Reddit itself. Most of it could also be posted on Twitter and Facebook, although there it might get labeled as misinformation. It's actually fairly difficult for the overwhelming majority of people to get legitimately kicked off of most mainstream social media. By "legitimately" I mean by actually violating the site's published rules. At the scale of these sites there are occasional mistakes made where someone gets banned who shouldn't, and it can be difficult to get that reviewed, but nevertheless for most people those sites are "free speech social networks". Because of this, when you start a site like Parler you get almost all of your initial membership from those people who got kicked off of Reddit, Twitter, etc., or who are having to work at not getting kicked off because they want to post calls to violence, etc. That sets the tone for the site from then on. Hence, when a site is specifically selling itself as a "free speech social network" it almost always can correctly be interpreted as "a social network for <X> extremists who could not follow basic norms for civilized discourse" for some X.
brigandish 6y ago
> would you want to work for such a company, or have it on your resume in the future? Does top talent only work for giant ad networks that thrive through undermining privacy (and hence, free speech) while manipulating public discourse to the point where these companies hardly have any defenders left? I suppose so, money will easily trump other considerations, especially among the naive, ignorant or just plain venal. The sad fact is your comment exposes how difficult it is for anyone in the tech industry to hold a sincere conviction that free speech is a good thing, which until recently would've been astounding. It's a giant backwards step.
- rob74 6y ago
  Free speech is one thing, building an echo chamber for lunatics is something completely different, at least in my book. In principle, we probably also agree that all people should be equal, but if you follow that principle to the end, you get Communism. That's why there is a need for supreme courts to interpret each country's constitution, which are basically just a list of simple principles that are acceptable to everyone, but the devil's always in the details...
  - brigandish 6y ago
    > building an echo chamber for lunatics is something completely different, Perhaps it would've been better for Twitter to support free speech then and they'd (the Parler users in question) have remained a fringe voice completely overwhelmed by opposition on a mainstream platform. Even then, the main problem I see driving all of this is the lack of competition, so I fully support building "echo chambers" if that means competition for platforms like Twitter that are actively working to create echo chambers that they control. Edit: clarity
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > In principle, we probably also agree that all people should be equal, but if you follow that principle to the end, you get Communism. That's a caricature. The actual principle is "equal justice before the law" (there are variations). Justice is an important part of the principle since otherwise "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread". Not to mention such evils as selective enforcement and prosecutorial discretion. Few people these days would insist that equality of outcomes is a legitimate goal, though the extent to which disparity of outcomes is treated as a "code smell" at least potentially indicating a societal problem worth examining does vary fairly predictably across the US political spectrum. The appetite for instituting solutions when a systemic problem is demonstrably found also varies fairly predictably.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
It'd be interesting, in any case. I recall tales of former colleagues who used to work for a dodgy online casino; fancy office or mansion on an island, extravagant parties, etc. And online I think I read something about porn sites, who were working on large scale video streaming well before Youtube and Netflix (as streaming service) were a thing.
quantummkv 6y ago
For the very reasons people work in ad tech, Facebook, et. al. Not everyone is a wannabe politician or a wannabe future founder/leader/influencer/celebrity with the accompanying delusions of grandeur. A lot of people just want to lead normal lives with their friends and family. I envy them. Truly.
kwertyoowiyop 6y ago
There are many talented engineers all across the political spectrum.
- acdha 6y ago
  This isn’t untrue but the distribution matters. Most of the conservative-leaning engineers I’ve known tended to be libertarian and/or rule of law types who wouldn’t work for a place like Parler. If you’re a devoted capitalist, you might favor larger companies with better pay. And, of course, if you’re not all of white, straight, Christian, and male you might reasonably have concerns which would not have stopped you from taking a job from, say, Mitt Romney. Each degree you move to an extreme has a fair impact on your ability to hire the best in a very competitive market. Even if you’re a movement conservative a prudent question is how something on your resume might affect your future earning potential.
notyourday 6y ago
> would you want to work for such a company, or have it on your resume in the future? How much are they paying, again? If they pay on par with FAANG, I'm sure they would have no problem attracting top tier talent. If they are paying multiples of FAANG, they would attract top of the FAANG talent. Of course if they are paying a fraction of FAANG, they are going to get a very mediocre talent.
matt-attack 6y ago
So it’s now just a given that all of HN objects to the phrase “free speech” without limits? Seems like a pretty radical assumption and a pretty sad sign of the times if true. Note: this message has nothing to do with Parler and being right or left. Just about the phrase “free speech” and what it now connotes.
- greedo 6y ago
  Free speech has always had limits...
  - matt-attack 6y ago
    Well maybe in the eyes of US law, but what that's not a given for, well, me or perhaps others on HN. Take "the US highway network" for example. It can just as easily be used to transport black-market items, child porn, weapons, drugs, etc as it can transport ice cream bars. I support it. Tor just as easily supports drug sales as it does star-trek reviews. I support it. Can't say for sure, but I think it's hazardous to assume we all prescribe to the exact same notion of the limits on free speech.
    - greedo 6y ago
      Oh, it's not just the US. Other countries have restrictions as well. Societal norms impose restrictions too. Unless you're an anarchist, there have always been (and probably always will) be restrictions on speech and free speech is typically meant in the domain of political speech.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Even anarchists believe there should be restrictions on speech. Just not that the power to restrict speech should be concentrated. The way humans socially operate inherently restricts speech.
- mike00632 6y ago
  The only reason you can even post here is because HN stops spam and DDOS attacks. Your entire post is only possible because there are limits on free speech.
bartread 6y ago
Top talent works at PornHub so I imagine Parler would have done all right. Perhaps not in the area of security, but we can point at plenty of other companies that were discovered to be lacking in this area at relatively early stages of their lifecycles (e.g., Zoom), not to mention a few very mature organisations (e.g., Intel!). One of the things that's incredibly unhelpful in our current political debates is that there exists a very noisy (at least) minority on both sides of every one of those debates that assumes all the people on the other side are idiots. In general this is not true[0] and so, yes, even though Parler was a social network explicitly for conservatives, they would still have been able to hire smart people. I don't say that Parler was for extremists, although an extremist contingent was certainly present, but it's worth remembering that even those that are unequivocally and uncontroversially agreed to be extremists by the vast majority of people (Bin Laden, Stalin, Hitler[1], et al) were always able to "hire", or perhaps disciple, very smart people. Being smart is not the same thing as being ethical, by which what I really mean in this context is sharing the same set of ethics that you or I have. (On a tangentially related note to both my first and last paragraphs, Boeing employ a very large number of very smart people and yet, as the 737 Max debacle clearly illustrates, they were nursing some absolutely horrendous culturual issues that led to a situation where that airliner was certified and sold even though it contained systems that incorporated severe safety failings.) [0] And the culture of endless cheap shots, snobbish intellectualism, and disrespectful dismissiveness that surrounds political debate these days is not a force for good in the world. [1] At the risk of invoking Godwin's law.

by rob74 6y ago

RHSeeger 6y ago

> would you want to work for such a company, or have it on your resume in the future And even if you did want to work for such a company, the impact on your resume in the future along might be enough to deter you.

thu2111 6y ago

Jack Dorsey: "We are the free speech wing of the free speech party" Mark Zuckerberg: "Trump says Facebook is against him, liberals say we helped Trump. Both sides are upset about ideas and content they don’t like. That’s what running a platform for all ideas looks like.” Matt Cutts: "We don't condone the practice of googlebombing, or any other action that seeks to affect the integrity of our search results, but we're also reluctant to alter our results by hand in order to prevent such items from showing up"

NikolaeVarius 6y ago

Yes? I wouldn't work for Parler, but I fail to see how the phrase "free speech social network" should elicit some negative emotion. Parler sucks because they are a haven to right wing extremists, not because of their marketing. Its like being angry at Signal because their encryption allows terrorists communicate securely.

shuntress 6y ago
The description "free speech social network" is very heavily associated with far right extremists. Much like, for example, the gadsden flag.
- edoceo 6y ago
  The yellow field, "don't tread on me" banner. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag
- jackhack 6y ago
  if free speech is only for the enemy, I fear what victory looks like.
  - jodrellblank 6y ago
    Someone recommends you some games, about one they say "it has a simulated theme park with intricate rollercoaster building engine and you compete with other theme parks for customers", about another they say "you're trying to build a rocket to the moon but it's really challenging", and about another they say "the interface responds to mouse clicks". "if a working interface is only for bad games, I fear what good games look like" Good games have working interfaces too, but they have a lot more worth talking about.
TomSwirly 6y ago
> I fail to see how the phrase "free speech social network" should elicit some negative emotion. Can you name a "free speech social network" that isn't overrun by white supremacists and Nazis? It turns out that if you prioritize free speech, then the people who congregate on your site are mostly those with beliefs that are sufficiently repugnant that decent humans don't want to be associated with them.
rob74 6y ago
Well, free speech is a good thing, if done responsibly. In practice though, "free speech" as used by Parler means no moderation at all, so the most blatant lies and the craziest conspiracy theories can run unchecked. And since mainstream platforms are cracking down on extremists, your platform will inevitably become a haven (and echo chamber) for them, even if you didn't intend to be one.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  As others have pointed out, yes they did moderate, just for different things.
- WalterSear 6y ago
  There was/is extremely heavy moderation on Parler.
  - andromeduck 6y ago
    Yeah I checked it out for a bit a few days after it launched, scrolled around for 10-20 min to see if it'd turn out like twitter, 8chan, or the_donald in terms of discussion and it was really weird. IDK how to even describe it other than that it seemed to have that MLM esque or truman show vibe where everything seemed strangely personal but also really shallow and performative? None of the discussions I saw felt natural. It was all super identity focused with very little policy discussion let alone material disagreement.
jimcsharp 6y ago
Everywhere I go, I feel like I have free speech by default. I suppose it's my privilege that I feel like that, but I digress. When free speech is explicitly advertised, it smells.
- chipotle_coyote 6y ago
  Yes, this, exactly. It's sad that "free speech" currently feels like a dog whistle for the alt right, but it's disingenuous to ignore the reality that social media sites and forums that have sprung up in the last few years explicitly advertising this have very much been going after an explicitly far right audience. The explicit promise is "we won't suppress your speech like those other platforms do," but Twitter, Facebook, et. al., demonstrably suppress very little speech: there are high-profile cases of people who have been kicked off after repeated warnings, but that's not actually the same claim. The real promise of Parler and friends is "you'll be surrounded by people who agree with you, unlike those other platforms." (There are lots of anecdotes of individual users who get temporary bans on Twitter for political speech, but I have heard those anecdotes across the political spectrum. I suspect conservatives grumpy at Twitter would be very surprised how much left-wing discourse there is about how Twitter protects TERFs, how they pay lip service to banning Nazis but don't really do it, how Jack Dorsey is probably a crypto-fascist, and so on. The parallel -- "I know of people who agree with me who have been moderated and people who disagree with me who have not, ergo Twitter is obviously biased in favor of The Other Side" -- is kind of fascinating.)
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    I agree the “free speech” label has been taken over by these content-outcasts and turned into a dog whistle. Today, if a platform markets itself as “The Free Speech version of X” it seems to always mean “The platform that hosts only content so bad it’s banned from X”.
tzs 6y ago
Almost everything on Parler and similar sites that is not explicit calls to violence against specific targets and does not call describe black people using the n-word and does not talk about things like how the Nazis were right when it comes to Jews could be posted on Reddit in /r/conservative without violating any rules of the subreddit or of Reddit itself. Most of it could also be posted on Twitter and Facebook, although there it might get labeled as misinformation. It's actually fairly difficult for the overwhelming majority of people to get legitimately kicked off of most mainstream social media. By "legitimately" I mean by actually violating the site's published rules. At the scale of these sites there are occasional mistakes made where someone gets banned who shouldn't, and it can be difficult to get that reviewed, but nevertheless for most people those sites are "free speech social networks". Because of this, when you start a site like Parler you get almost all of your initial membership from those people who got kicked off of Reddit, Twitter, etc., or who are having to work at not getting kicked off because they want to post calls to violence, etc. That sets the tone for the site from then on. Hence, when a site is specifically selling itself as a "free speech social network" it almost always can correctly be interpreted as "a social network for <X> extremists who could not follow basic norms for civilized discourse" for some X.

brigandish 6y ago

> would you want to work for such a company, or have it on your resume in the future? Does top talent only work for giant ad networks that thrive through undermining privacy (and hence, free speech) while manipulating public discourse to the point where these companies hardly have any defenders left? I suppose so, money will easily trump other considerations, especially among the naive, ignorant or just plain venal. The sad fact is your comment exposes how difficult it is for anyone in the tech industry to hold a sincere conviction that free speech is a good thing, which until recently would've been astounding. It's a giant backwards step.

rob74 6y ago
Free speech is one thing, building an echo chamber for lunatics is something completely different, at least in my book. In principle, we probably also agree that all people should be equal, but if you follow that principle to the end, you get Communism. That's why there is a need for supreme courts to interpret each country's constitution, which are basically just a list of simple principles that are acceptable to everyone, but the devil's always in the details...
- brigandish 6y ago
  > building an echo chamber for lunatics is something completely different, Perhaps it would've been better for Twitter to support free speech then and they'd (the Parler users in question) have remained a fringe voice completely overwhelmed by opposition on a mainstream platform. Even then, the main problem I see driving all of this is the lack of competition, so I fully support building "echo chambers" if that means competition for platforms like Twitter that are actively working to create echo chambers that they control. Edit: clarity
- webmaven 6y ago
  > In principle, we probably also agree that all people should be equal, but if you follow that principle to the end, you get Communism. That's a caricature. The actual principle is "equal justice before the law" (there are variations). Justice is an important part of the principle since otherwise "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread". Not to mention such evils as selective enforcement and prosecutorial discretion. Few people these days would insist that equality of outcomes is a legitimate goal, though the extent to which disparity of outcomes is treated as a "code smell" at least potentially indicating a societal problem worth examining does vary fairly predictably across the US political spectrum. The appetite for instituting solutions when a systemic problem is demonstrably found also varies fairly predictably.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

It'd be interesting, in any case. I recall tales of former colleagues who used to work for a dodgy online casino; fancy office or mansion on an island, extravagant parties, etc. And online I think I read something about porn sites, who were working on large scale video streaming well before Youtube and Netflix (as streaming service) were a thing.

quantummkv 6y ago

For the very reasons people work in ad tech, Facebook, et. al. Not everyone is a wannabe politician or a wannabe future founder/leader/influencer/celebrity with the accompanying delusions of grandeur. A lot of people just want to lead normal lives with their friends and family. I envy them. Truly.

kwertyoowiyop 6y ago

There are many talented engineers all across the political spectrum.

acdha 6y ago
This isn’t untrue but the distribution matters. Most of the conservative-leaning engineers I’ve known tended to be libertarian and/or rule of law types who wouldn’t work for a place like Parler. If you’re a devoted capitalist, you might favor larger companies with better pay. And, of course, if you’re not all of white, straight, Christian, and male you might reasonably have concerns which would not have stopped you from taking a job from, say, Mitt Romney. Each degree you move to an extreme has a fair impact on your ability to hire the best in a very competitive market. Even if you’re a movement conservative a prudent question is how something on your resume might affect your future earning potential.

notyourday 6y ago

> would you want to work for such a company, or have it on your resume in the future? How much are they paying, again? If they pay on par with FAANG, I'm sure they would have no problem attracting top tier talent. If they are paying multiples of FAANG, they would attract top of the FAANG talent. Of course if they are paying a fraction of FAANG, they are going to get a very mediocre talent.

matt-attack 6y ago

So it’s now just a given that all of HN objects to the phrase “free speech” without limits? Seems like a pretty radical assumption and a pretty sad sign of the times if true. Note: this message has nothing to do with Parler and being right or left. Just about the phrase “free speech” and what it now connotes.

greedo 6y ago
Free speech has always had limits...
- matt-attack 6y ago
  Well maybe in the eyes of US law, but what that's not a given for, well, me or perhaps others on HN. Take "the US highway network" for example. It can just as easily be used to transport black-market items, child porn, weapons, drugs, etc as it can transport ice cream bars. I support it. Tor just as easily supports drug sales as it does star-trek reviews. I support it. Can't say for sure, but I think it's hazardous to assume we all prescribe to the exact same notion of the limits on free speech.
  - greedo 6y ago
    Oh, it's not just the US. Other countries have restrictions as well. Societal norms impose restrictions too. Unless you're an anarchist, there have always been (and probably always will) be restrictions on speech and free speech is typically meant in the domain of political speech.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Even anarchists believe there should be restrictions on speech. Just not that the power to restrict speech should be concentrated. The way humans socially operate inherently restricts speech.
mike00632 6y ago
The only reason you can even post here is because HN stops spam and DDOS attacks. Your entire post is only possible because there are limits on free speech.

bartread 6y ago

Top talent works at PornHub so I imagine Parler would have done all right. Perhaps not in the area of security, but we can point at plenty of other companies that were discovered to be lacking in this area at relatively early stages of their lifecycles (e.g., Zoom), not to mention a few very mature organisations (e.g., Intel!). One of the things that's incredibly unhelpful in our current political debates is that there exists a very noisy (at least) minority on both sides of every one of those debates that assumes all the people on the other side are idiots. In general this is not true[0] and so, yes, even though Parler was a social network explicitly for conservatives, they would still have been able to hire smart people. I don't say that Parler was for extremists, although an extremist contingent was certainly present, but it's worth remembering that even those that are unequivocally and uncontroversially agreed to be extremists by the vast majority of people (Bin Laden, Stalin, Hitler[1], et al) were always able to "hire", or perhaps disciple, very smart people. Being smart is not the same thing as being ethical, by which what I really mean in this context is sharing the same set of ethics that you or I have. (On a tangentially related note to both my first and last paragraphs, Boeing employ a very large number of very smart people and yet, as the 737 Max debacle clearly illustrates, they were nursing some absolutely horrendous culturual issues that led to a situation where that airliner was certified and sold even though it contained systems that incorporated severe safety failings.) [0] And the culture of endless cheap shots, snobbish intellectualism, and disrespectful dismissiveness that surrounds political debate these days is not a force for good in the world. [1] At the risk of invoking Godwin's law.