5 ms·

Instagram doesn't claim to be a "free speech" platform. You have to only be mildly interested in it to see that it's all about "engagement" Parler explicitly cl

Instagram doesn't claim to be a "free speech" platform. You have to only be mildly interested in it to see that it's all about "engagement" Parler explicitly claimed "free speech" as a goal

whimsicalism 6y ago
So because the owners claim the platform to be something other than it actually is, it is okay for this person to leak the Parler users' private images and videos?
- jabberwcky 6y ago
  Unfortunately you won't find much interesting commentary in a politically charged thread like this, best to just scan and pattern match the kind of exchanges occurring before moving swiftly along.
  - julianmarq 6y ago
    > best to just scan and pattern match the kind of exchanges occurring before moving swiftly along. How do you do that? I've noticed lately that HN commentary (at least in threads like this) has trended increasingly pro-censorship[1] lately, and it's pretty disheartening to read. Would rather do something like what you say, but I'm not quite sure what you mean. [1]: Which is a bit ironic, thinking about it.
    - awb 6y ago
      > increasingly pro-censorship[1] lately The US has always had limits on free speech. > Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech Incitement, sedition, public security and harm to others seem to be relevant to this discussion.
      - julianmarq 6y ago
        > [US limits on free speech] seem to be relevant to this discussion. But not to my comment, and not just because I'm not from the USA. I'm not speaking in favor of parler if that's what you assumed (for some reason). Specially if it is, like the top comment said, just a propaganda machine trying to enforce a single viewpoint. That's antithesis to free speech.
        awb 6y ago
        I was referring to the comment where you say HN is “bizarrely” more “pro-censorship”. Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected in the US like calls to violence, or speech that insights others to violence. Companies gave Trump et. al. the benefit of the doubt on the “inciting violence” part, until the violence actually materialized and the FBI warned of groups organizing online to coordinate future violent attacks.
        julianmarq 6y ago
        > I was referring to the comment where you say HN is “bizarrely” more “pro-censorship”. Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected I didn't use the word "bizarrely" and I'm not talking about condemnation of unprotected speech (and again, not just because I'm not from the USA). I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", and that's just an example. > [Trump] Again, I wasn't talking about parler nor about Trump. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to imply that I'm talking about stuff I'm not, or steering the conversation toward subjects I've never even alluded to.
        awb 6y ago
        > I didn't use the word "bizarrely" Sorry, I meant "ironic". > I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", and that's just an example. Maybe downvoted far down the thread, but the majority of the upvoted "censorship" discussions have been directly related to Big Tech's deplatforming of Trump & Parler in response to the capital attacks, and how the existing limits on US free speech apply to these decisions.
    - wrs 6y ago
      The use of the term “censorship” is itself a negative signal, as it preempts useful discussion by imposing a false dichotomy. There’s no feasible zero-censorship scenario (see “yelling fire in a crowded theater”, etc.) so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree. But pretty much no one wants preapproval of every utterance either, so everyone is also “anti-censorship”. If you see someone talking about “damping positive disinformation feedback loops” or something like that, rather than “censorship”, that’s one signal there’s a substantive discussion taking place. (Zero censorship is kind of like absolute anarchy: an interesting thought experiment that may be useful to inform a practical debate.)
      - julianmarq 6y ago
        > But pretty much no one wants preapproval of every utterance either, so everyone is also “anti-censorship”. I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", just as an example of what I meant in my first comment. > so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree Please, don't. You're arguing against an extreme of my comment instead of what I actually meant[1] (which, of course, you're free to do, but I would also be just as free to dismiss it as a bad faith argument), but also you're extending something you might believe onto others. You're of course free to be "pro-censorship", but you don't know what everyone else thinks, and certainly not what I think. > The use of the term “censorship” is itself a negative signal, as it preempts useful discussion by imposing a false dichotomy. I completely disagree with this. The example I gave is absolutely an argument in favor of censorship. > If you see someone talking about “damping positive disinformation feedback loops” or something like that, rather than “censorship”, that’s one signal there’s a substantive discussion taking place. Excusing it by saying "dampening positive disinformation feedback loops" is excusing censorship. You might refuse to call it such, but I don't have a reason not to. [1]: For starters, I'm aware that there's unprotected speech for a reason, and I never called condemnation of such speech "censorship".
        wrs 6y ago
        Do you see how by using the word “censorship” as if it were a unitary concept with an agreed-upon meaning, you have made it difficult to continue this conversation? I didn’t present any position at all other than saying that neither extreme is realistic — which I think you actually agree with. But you’re trying to argue with me anyway. I was just trying to answer your question on how to recognize a more nuanced and productive discussion: look for people arguing about specific behaviors; avoid people arguing over the definition of the word “censorship”.
    - confidantlake 6y ago
      Why is it ironic? Hacker news censors content more heavily than somewhere like twitter or facebook. If you call someone stupid you will likely get warned and eventually banned.
      - julianmarq 6y ago
        I replied this to someone else, but I think it works here too: The irony, for me, is that if I were in favor of censorship, I would be the first person I censor, instead of using an online forum to speak in favor of censorship. I feel that there's irony in using a widely accessed medium just to talk about how censorship is the way to go.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- escape_goat 6y ago
  So, because the owners (a) claim that Parler is a free speech platform when (b) actually it engages in extensive moderation to ensure ideological conformity in their posts, then (c) Parler is more of a propaganda weapon than a free speech platform. That was the point that was being made in the context of a number of erroneous references to Parler being unmoderated. One can debate whether the data leak was ethical, but one should not base one's position on a false understanding of what Parler is.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    Fair enough, although I'll note that this condition (a) was tacked on after the similarities to IG were pointed out. I guess the point I was trying to make is whether or not Parler is moderated to me seems irrelevant to the permissibility of this action.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    'Free speech platform' is a meaningless phrase, because it means different things to different people. Almost anyone would agree that a platform which allows any speech at all is a 'free speech platform' even if they don't agree with allowing certain kinds of speech. Most people would agree a platform that allows any speech outside of socially accepted exceptions (e.g. threats of violence, slander) is a 'free speech platform'. But for people who are largely not allowed to share their views (rightly or wrongly) a platform which is heavily moderated for ideological conformity can also be a 'free speech platform' if they agree with the ideology, because they are free to speak all the speech they want to speak and are prevented from doing on other platforms. It's pretty clear that Parler falls into this category.
- hertzrat 6y ago
  Whether you like him or not, Zuckerberg has gotten in a lot of trouble over the years for resisting censorship pressure. His actions suggest it’s something he values
  - mike00632 6y ago
    Right. Facebook didn't remove Holocaust denial content until October 2020.
vegcel 6y ago
Zuckerberg: "Whether you like Facebook or not, we need to recognize what is at stake and come together to stand for free expression at this critical moment." https://about.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-stands-for-voice-and-free-expression/ https://about.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-stands-for...

Instagram doesn't claim to be a "free speech" platform. You have to only be mildly interested in it to see that it's all about "engagement" Parler explicitly claimed "free speech" as a goal

whimsicalism 6y ago

So because the owners claim the platform to be something other than it actually is, it is okay for this person to leak the Parler users' private images and videos?

jabberwcky 6y ago
Unfortunately you won't find much interesting commentary in a politically charged thread like this, best to just scan and pattern match the kind of exchanges occurring before moving swiftly along.
- julianmarq 6y ago
  > best to just scan and pattern match the kind of exchanges occurring before moving swiftly along. How do you do that? I've noticed lately that HN commentary (at least in threads like this) has trended increasingly pro-censorship[1] lately, and it's pretty disheartening to read. Would rather do something like what you say, but I'm not quite sure what you mean. [1]: Which is a bit ironic, thinking about it.
  - awb 6y ago
    > increasingly pro-censorship[1] lately The US has always had limits on free speech. > Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech Incitement, sedition, public security and harm to others seem to be relevant to this discussion.
    - julianmarq 6y ago
      > [US limits on free speech] seem to be relevant to this discussion. But not to my comment, and not just because I'm not from the USA. I'm not speaking in favor of parler if that's what you assumed (for some reason). Specially if it is, like the top comment said, just a propaganda machine trying to enforce a single viewpoint. That's antithesis to free speech.
      - awb 6y ago
        I was referring to the comment where you say HN is “bizarrely” more “pro-censorship”. Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected in the US like calls to violence, or speech that insights others to violence. Companies gave Trump et. al. the benefit of the doubt on the “inciting violence” part, until the violence actually materialized and the FBI warned of groups organizing online to coordinate future violent attacks.
        julianmarq 6y ago
        > I was referring to the comment where you say HN is “bizarrely” more “pro-censorship”. Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected I didn't use the word "bizarrely" and I'm not talking about condemnation of unprotected speech (and again, not just because I'm not from the USA). I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", and that's just an example. > [Trump] Again, I wasn't talking about parler nor about Trump. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to imply that I'm talking about stuff I'm not, or steering the conversation toward subjects I've never even alluded to.
        awb 6y ago
        > I didn't use the word "bizarrely" Sorry, I meant "ironic". > I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", and that's just an example. Maybe downvoted far down the thread, but the majority of the upvoted "censorship" discussions have been directly related to Big Tech's deplatforming of Trump & Parler in response to the capital attacks, and how the existing limits on US free speech apply to these decisions.
  - wrs 6y ago
    The use of the term “censorship” is itself a negative signal, as it preempts useful discussion by imposing a false dichotomy. There’s no feasible zero-censorship scenario (see “yelling fire in a crowded theater”, etc.) so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree. But pretty much no one wants preapproval of every utterance either, so everyone is also “anti-censorship”. If you see someone talking about “damping positive disinformation feedback loops” or something like that, rather than “censorship”, that’s one signal there’s a substantive discussion taking place. (Zero censorship is kind of like absolute anarchy: an interesting thought experiment that may be useful to inform a practical debate.)
    - julianmarq 6y ago
      > But pretty much no one wants preapproval of every utterance either, so everyone is also “anti-censorship”. I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", just as an example of what I meant in my first comment. > so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree Please, don't. You're arguing against an extreme of my comment instead of what I actually meant[1] (which, of course, you're free to do, but I would also be just as free to dismiss it as a bad faith argument), but also you're extending something you might believe onto others. You're of course free to be "pro-censorship", but you don't know what everyone else thinks, and certainly not what I think. > The use of the term “censorship” is itself a negative signal, as it preempts useful discussion by imposing a false dichotomy. I completely disagree with this. The example I gave is absolutely an argument in favor of censorship. > If you see someone talking about “damping positive disinformation feedback loops” or something like that, rather than “censorship”, that’s one signal there’s a substantive discussion taking place. Excusing it by saying "dampening positive disinformation feedback loops" is excusing censorship. You might refuse to call it such, but I don't have a reason not to. [1]: For starters, I'm aware that there's unprotected speech for a reason, and I never called condemnation of such speech "censorship".
      - wrs 6y ago
        Do you see how by using the word “censorship” as if it were a unitary concept with an agreed-upon meaning, you have made it difficult to continue this conversation? I didn’t present any position at all other than saying that neither extreme is realistic — which I think you actually agree with. But you’re trying to argue with me anyway. I was just trying to answer your question on how to recognize a more nuanced and productive discussion: look for people arguing about specific behaviors; avoid people arguing over the definition of the word “censorship”.
  - confidantlake 6y ago
    Why is it ironic? Hacker news censors content more heavily than somewhere like twitter or facebook. If you call someone stupid you will likely get warned and eventually banned.
    - julianmarq 6y ago
      I replied this to someone else, but I think it works here too: The irony, for me, is that if I were in favor of censorship, I would be the first person I censor, instead of using an online forum to speak in favor of censorship. I feel that there's irony in using a widely accessed medium just to talk about how censorship is the way to go.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
escape_goat 6y ago
So, because the owners (a) claim that Parler is a free speech platform when (b) actually it engages in extensive moderation to ensure ideological conformity in their posts, then (c) Parler is more of a propaganda weapon than a free speech platform. That was the point that was being made in the context of a number of erroneous references to Parler being unmoderated. One can debate whether the data leak was ethical, but one should not base one's position on a false understanding of what Parler is.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Fair enough, although I'll note that this condition (a) was tacked on after the similarities to IG were pointed out. I guess the point I was trying to make is whether or not Parler is moderated to me seems irrelevant to the permissibility of this action.
- cgriswald 6y ago
  'Free speech platform' is a meaningless phrase, because it means different things to different people. Almost anyone would agree that a platform which allows any speech at all is a 'free speech platform' even if they don't agree with allowing certain kinds of speech. Most people would agree a platform that allows any speech outside of socially accepted exceptions (e.g. threats of violence, slander) is a 'free speech platform'. But for people who are largely not allowed to share their views (rightly or wrongly) a platform which is heavily moderated for ideological conformity can also be a 'free speech platform' if they agree with the ideology, because they are free to speak all the speech they want to speak and are prevented from doing on other platforms. It's pretty clear that Parler falls into this category.
hertzrat 6y ago
Whether you like him or not, Zuckerberg has gotten in a lot of trouble over the years for resisting censorship pressure. His actions suggest it’s something he values
- mike00632 6y ago
  Right. Facebook didn't remove Holocaust denial content until October 2020.

vegcel 6y ago

Zuckerberg: "Whether you like Facebook or not, we need to recognize what is at stake and come together to stand for free expression at this critical moment." https://about.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-stands-for-voice-and-free-expression/ https://about.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-stands-for...