4 ms·

Most providers also don't allow ISIS on their platforms. Another known terror-sponsoring organization. For a long time now. And yet I don't see people tying the

Most providers also don't allow ISIS on their platforms. Another known terror-sponsoring organization. For a long time now. And yet I don't see people tying themselves into free speech knots over ISIS getting deplatformed. I wonder why that is?

sn_master 6y ago
Because ISIS leaders and the organization have been convicted by courts all over the world. Parler and the other conservatives who got banned were not convicted by any court within or even outside the United States. People are mad because big tech is shutting things down without any due process simply to appease the new emperor in power. Big tech made a decision that the hell with the judicial system, Democrats now have the executive and the senate, we have to bend the knee and kiss the ring to keep our section 230 and don't get taxed into oblivion.
- pixl97 6y ago
  Someone doesn't understand civil law. If I dont have to wait for a child porn conviction to ban you from my site for posting 'illegal' content. I will do it immediately and sever all contracts. Its funny how we have the freedom of association right up to the moment it affects those supporting fascism, then all of a sudden a different set of laws matter.
  - sn_master 6y ago
    Can you give an example of content that was within that range of offense or danger that was posted on Parler?
    - pixl97 6y ago
      I don't need to, AWS gave Parler 98 of them.
      - sn_master 6y ago
        None of which meet that bar.
throwaway329123 6y ago
ISIS used to publish videos of them beheading people as propaganda to recruit young people for the jihad. They'd also claim terrorists attacks and encourage their supporters to do the same. So, what is your point?
- kingdomcome50 6y ago
  I can't say for sure, but I think the point is to highlight some hypocrisy of the "free speech" argument. That is, if you claim censoring ISIS speech is okay but not Parler speech, then you must also be claiming that there is a line somewhere between the two that is being crossed. You are therefore acknowledging a limit to free speech. But that isn't the point yet. The point is that you (not necessary you) are drawing a line at all. It's that there is a line. And if there exists a limit to free speech, it means someone has to decide where that limit is placed. We are almost to the point. And if someone gets to decide where the limit to free speech is placed, who gets to make that decision and why? Clearly you have put that line between ISIS and Parler according to your own belief system (or maybe not, you haven't explicitly denoted anything). But the point is that there exists a reason to limit free speech. I promise the point is coming. If there exists reasons to limit free speech then we have a problem. You see, you and I may agree ISIS should be de-platformed, but other people may believe other things and therefore have other reasons. The point is that there is no such thing as "free speech". That everyone has their reasons. And that the people shouting "free speech" often mean "free speech within the thresholds that I am comfortable". That nobody actually, truly, deep-down believes in "free speech". The point is that "free speech" is a myth. So quit wasting your time calling out Amazon for infringing on something that doesn't exist (again, not necessarily you).
mariopt 6y ago
You can't compare a group that kills thousands of people with a group that has it's own ideas. You could claim it is a dangerous one but you'll find many other accepted groups that would fall under the same category given the right perspective. Freedom of speech is not about hearing the ideas you like but the ones you dislike.

sn_master 6y ago

Because ISIS leaders and the organization have been convicted by courts all over the world. Parler and the other conservatives who got banned were not convicted by any court within or even outside the United States. People are mad because big tech is shutting things down without any due process simply to appease the new emperor in power. Big tech made a decision that the hell with the judicial system, Democrats now have the executive and the senate, we have to bend the knee and kiss the ring to keep our section 230 and don't get taxed into oblivion.

pixl97 6y ago
Someone doesn't understand civil law. If I dont have to wait for a child porn conviction to ban you from my site for posting 'illegal' content. I will do it immediately and sever all contracts. Its funny how we have the freedom of association right up to the moment it affects those supporting fascism, then all of a sudden a different set of laws matter.
- sn_master 6y ago
  Can you give an example of content that was within that range of offense or danger that was posted on Parler?
  - pixl97 6y ago
    I don't need to, AWS gave Parler 98 of them.
    - sn_master 6y ago
      None of which meet that bar.

throwaway329123 6y ago

ISIS used to publish videos of them beheading people as propaganda to recruit young people for the jihad. They'd also claim terrorists attacks and encourage their supporters to do the same. So, what is your point?

kingdomcome50 6y ago
I can't say for sure, but I think the point is to highlight some hypocrisy of the "free speech" argument. That is, if you claim censoring ISIS speech is okay but not Parler speech, then you must also be claiming that there is a line somewhere between the two that is being crossed. You are therefore acknowledging a limit to free speech. But that isn't the point yet. The point is that you (not necessary you) are drawing a line at all. It's that there is a line. And if there exists a limit to free speech, it means someone has to decide where that limit is placed. We are almost to the point. And if someone gets to decide where the limit to free speech is placed, who gets to make that decision and why? Clearly you have put that line between ISIS and Parler according to your own belief system (or maybe not, you haven't explicitly denoted anything). But the point is that there exists a reason to limit free speech. I promise the point is coming. If there exists reasons to limit free speech then we have a problem. You see, you and I may agree ISIS should be de-platformed, but other people may believe other things and therefore have other reasons. The point is that there is no such thing as "free speech". That everyone has their reasons. And that the people shouting "free speech" often mean "free speech within the thresholds that I am comfortable". That nobody actually, truly, deep-down believes in "free speech". The point is that "free speech" is a myth. So quit wasting your time calling out Amazon for infringing on something that doesn't exist (again, not necessarily you).

mariopt 6y ago

You can't compare a group that kills thousands of people with a group that has it's own ideas. You could claim it is a dangerous one but you'll find many other accepted groups that would fall under the same category given the right perspective. Freedom of speech is not about hearing the ideas you like but the ones you dislike.