2 ms·

I am no Trump supporter or conservative - I find it ridiculous that I feel the need to preface that - but I can’t be the only one that is surprised at how willi

I am no Trump supporter or conservative - I find it ridiculous that I feel the need to preface that - but I can’t be the only one that is surprised at how willing people are to accept Big Tech becoming the arbiter of truth and acceptable political viewpoints. From the calls to violence on Facebook, to the terrorists on Twitter, to the hardcore pornography on Reddit, plenty of platforms break Apple’s, Google’s, or Amazon’s ToS. I don’t know how one could possibly argue that Parler isn’t being singled out. Today it’s Parler. Tomorrow it will be whatever ideology the megacorps find inconvenient. If anything, this whole saga underscores the need for decentralized social media and having control over our own devices and the apps we are allowed to install. I’m genuinely surprised. HN is the last place that I’d expect to be comfortable with our snowball into a corporate dystopia.

spankalee 6y ago
Parler refused to even try to moderate posts and users calling for violence. This isn't about ideology, except in cases where an ideology is calling for violence.
- xvector 6y ago
  Parler was given 24 hours to come up with and implement a moderation policy. They might as well have received no time at all. Edit: it turns out Parler actually did have policies and moderation against violent content And what use is having a moderation policy when it isn’t getting implemented anyways? KSA can still post on Twitter. Hardcore pornography will continue to exist on Reddit. Users will continue to insinuate violence on Facebook.
DubiousPusher 6y ago
I can't speak for others but I marked "unsure", not because I'm "willing to accept Big Tech becoming the arbiter of truth" but because Big Tech is that arbiter already. Everything from who gets a blue check mark to how the algorithm sorts your feed creates and feeds your concerns and beliefs. I honestly think this discussion "should they or shouldn't they ban x" is a poor framing of the discussion we should be having. It implies media companies can be unbiased. It implies there is some democracy implicit in social media. It implies that the right virtues can make social media work. I don't think any of those things are true and I don't think we should have a discussion that allows their presumption. What people are doing on Twitter isn't new. What Twitter is doing isn't new. What people on Parler are doing isn't new. What Parler is doing isn't new. People who believe it is new simply have an incorrect understanding of history. They underestimate the gross bias in media historically. They underestimate the volume and extremity of seditious communication and activity. They underestimate the violence and frequency of political unrest. If we want to have a real conversation about disassociating power and speech, disassociating money and speech, disassociating status quo and speech, I think that's a worthy conversation. The rest of this is red meat for slacktivist posters.

spankalee 6y ago

Parler refused to even try to moderate posts and users calling for violence. This isn't about ideology, except in cases where an ideology is calling for violence.

xvector 6y ago
Parler was given 24 hours to come up with and implement a moderation policy. They might as well have received no time at all. Edit: it turns out Parler actually did have policies and moderation against violent content And what use is having a moderation policy when it isn’t getting implemented anyways? KSA can still post on Twitter. Hardcore pornography will continue to exist on Reddit. Users will continue to insinuate violence on Facebook.

DubiousPusher 6y ago

I can't speak for others but I marked "unsure", not because I'm "willing to accept Big Tech becoming the arbiter of truth" but because Big Tech is that arbiter already. Everything from who gets a blue check mark to how the algorithm sorts your feed creates and feeds your concerns and beliefs. I honestly think this discussion "should they or shouldn't they ban x" is a poor framing of the discussion we should be having. It implies media companies can be unbiased. It implies there is some democracy implicit in social media. It implies that the right virtues can make social media work. I don't think any of those things are true and I don't think we should have a discussion that allows their presumption. What people are doing on Twitter isn't new. What Twitter is doing isn't new. What people on Parler are doing isn't new. What Parler is doing isn't new. People who believe it is new simply have an incorrect understanding of history. They underestimate the gross bias in media historically. They underestimate the volume and extremity of seditious communication and activity. They underestimate the violence and frequency of political unrest. If we want to have a real conversation about disassociating power and speech, disassociating money and speech, disassociating status quo and speech, I think that's a worthy conversation. The rest of this is red meat for slacktivist posters.