4 ms·

I'll probably burn some karma on this, but I have to ask as I'm genuinely trying to form a consistent opinion on these topics and understand better. Given that

I'll probably burn some karma on this, but I have to ask as I'm genuinely trying to form a consistent opinion on these topics and understand better. Given that lots of people on HN are advocating in favor of Parler being deplatformed on the grounds it was used by groups to advocate and coordinate violence, and given that it's not a stretch to imagine that e2e encrypted communication apps like Signal have groups on them spreading "fake news" and "advocating violence" and cannot be moderated, how does one reconcile supporting Signal/Telegram/WhatsApp, but not Parler? What's the fundamental moral or technical difference that makes one ethical but not the other?

throwaway829 6y ago
Parler has right wing users. Telegram has not been labeled right wing. That's the difference.
- anderber 6y ago
  This is not true, Parler was actively trying to be right wing and saying they're just about free speech. Their moderation says otherwise.
  - eplanit 6y ago
    Twitter claims to be neutral but their moderation reveals their active left-bias.
    - berkes 6y ago
      Without backup or evidence, that sounds like a very populist thing to say. Makes me wonder if with data, math and statistics 'right' or 'left' can be distinguished at all: since they are so ambiguous and fluid concepts.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
anderber 6y ago
From my point of view, the conversation is more about supporting privacy vs not. I don't think anyone is supporting WhatsApp, specially after the recent news.
- jolmg 6y ago
  I think for the sake of shireboy's question, WhatsApp can be ignored. shireboy's point seems to be that it seems inconsistent to want moderation in one type of network and not mind not having it in the other. Though, it's possible that the users supporting the moderation are different than those supporting e2e networks.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
drieddust 6y ago
Just emotions that sacrosanct capitol was breached by fascist Trump's supporters. That begs the question which platforms were used for organizing BLM riots for months and why there aren't any consequences? Companies claiming to uphold democracy are the worst offenders if it makes business or idealogical sense yet HN crowd is cheering. Look at how they are willing to suck upto China, Iran, and even Taliban. Disclaimer: Trump is a unreliable character so I don't like him personally a lot. But cheering up one-sided suppression without looking at the full picture is distasteful.
- ende 6y ago
  Cringe.
  - drieddust 6y ago
    You say this without any data or evidence. I am not an American so I have no skin in this game.
ip26 6y ago
Parler is broadcast, Signal is point to point. It's a significant difference.
- godelski 6y ago
  Doesn't Telegram have broadcast (channels)? And isn't this a highly requested feature for Signal? This seems to be what will happen to any communication network unless restricted significantly.
  - Natfan 6y ago
    Can't speak for Signal, but Telegram does have broadcasting via Channles. For example, I get a developer-friendly memes by @dev_meme
  - ip26 6y ago
    They do- and Telegram has been shutting down channels for incitement of violence since at least 2015 https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/secret-messaging-app-telegram-shuts-down-channels-related-isis-n465757 https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/secre...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
mcint 6y ago
The existing platforms work well enough for people who aren’t kicked off of them, or hindered in sharing their views. Liking, caring about, or knowing of the existence of these new platforms is a strong proxy for the kinds of political views that some find easy and safe to hate on. Engagement inside Signal is with your existing networks and groups, and can only grow iteratively—not virally/exponentially—it’s a chat app. WhatsApp and Telegram do support and encourage broadcast oriented communication, and personally I do associate WhatsApp with misinformation-fueled violence in countries where it’s the first exposure people have to internet-style mass direct communication. Signal invented new cryptography to justify its existence. WhatsApp scaled chat, SMS-analogous to start, for the world to use. Telegram invented secret ways to MitM chat connections, and wasn’t under US influence. Parler exists to make a political statement in the current US political context.
erentz 6y ago
I believe the support for Signal comes from the privacy it offers from Facebook, et al., and by extension also possibly the government (Snowden, et al.), not because it can be used to coordinate violence.
jolmg 6y ago
I'm not sure of my own position, but I think the fundamental moral difference for those supporting moderation is that if one does have the ability to moderate, then they should have a moral obligation to do so. Technically, there's no central authority that can moderate Signal, so you can't have the moral obligation there. I don't think there would be a significant proportion of people that would advocate for Signal to become centralized so it would allow moderation by a central authority. Another perhaps more cynical take is that even if there is hate-speech and other undesirable communication in Signal, it's not seen so people aren't concerned about it. As they say, "out of sight, out of mind." That makes me wonder if expectations would change if people started publishing screenshots of Signal groups with hate-speech. I think they'd be pretty limited to small sizes, so perhaps they wouldn't be as concerning.
godelski 6y ago
I see the stances as very different. Parler is a social media site dedicated to extremism. While I believe in their 1st amendment right to exist (not all speech is protected though) I do not like this group. On the other hand I see companies like Signal and CloudFlare as being neutral. They have taken a position that they choose not to be the arbiters of right and wrong. These companies also aren't dedicated to extremism. I believe that being able to speak freely and make mistakes is an essential part of democracy. A privacy preserving platform protects this idea. If the service is dedicated to the public (aka neutral) then I think this is the right move. Extremists will (and have) congregate on Signal (as they do on WA, Telegram, Twitter, 4Chan, Facebook, etc). I see encryption orthogonal to the issue of extremism. This may make it a bit harder for security to monitor these groups (no dragnets), but if they are mass groups it won't be hard to infiltrate anyways. If a member of the public can get in then why can't someone from the CIA/NSA? It might as well be in clear text. If they can't infiltrate these groups then we have much bigger problems and everyone has been overestimating the power of these organizations for decades. So to sum up. I highly value privacy and security (especially as we're adding more to the internet. The danger is increasing). But I'm against extremism. It is a numbers game that more public members will gain value from privacy than the dozens of terrorists who will. But it is a different situation if someone creates a space dedicated to extremism. (I do think this is a very reasonable question to ask though) Edit: I wouldn't say that Signal will be completely unmoderated. Groups still have admins. But you're right that Signal won't be able to moderate. But this isn't that different from any federated platform.
- shireboy 6y ago
  Thank you for a very reasoned reply. I guess my fear for my karma was unfounded. ;) Two follow up questions: How do you objectively determine Parler is dedicated to extremism but Signal is not? I think Parler would argue (even if incorrect or insincerely) that they choose not to be the arbiter of right and wrong too, or at least to do so as minimally as possible. Since we can't see into Signal, we don't have any data on the % of messages dedicated to extremism. "If a member of the public can get in then why can't someone from the CIA/NSA? It might as well be in clear text. If they can't infiltrate these groups then we have much bigger problems". Isn't that an argument for allowing Parler to stand? It actually _is_ (er, well, was) clear text, and I would be _shocked_ if CIA/NSA weren't monitoring it. Wouldn't we be safer with bad guys coordinating on Parler than on Signal.
phlakaton 6y ago
As Signal has allegedly seen a huge boost in signups since Jan 6, I think this is a very pertinent and difficult question. The way I see it, Signal will not make it any easier for outsiders to get radicalized (there's no public forum aspect), but once people are already radicalized and connected, it can be used to great mischief. That said, I tend to be liberal on this topic, and I feel the benefits of across-the-board E2E encryption to society outweigh the risks. But it seems likely to me that that principle is about to be sorely tested.

throwaway829 6y ago

Parler has right wing users. Telegram has not been labeled right wing. That's the difference.

anderber 6y ago
This is not true, Parler was actively trying to be right wing and saying they're just about free speech. Their moderation says otherwise.
- eplanit 6y ago
  Twitter claims to be neutral but their moderation reveals their active left-bias.
  - berkes 6y ago
    Without backup or evidence, that sounds like a very populist thing to say. Makes me wonder if with data, math and statistics 'right' or 'left' can be distinguished at all: since they are so ambiguous and fluid concepts.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

anderber 6y ago

From my point of view, the conversation is more about supporting privacy vs not. I don't think anyone is supporting WhatsApp, specially after the recent news.

jolmg 6y ago
I think for the sake of shireboy's question, WhatsApp can be ignored. shireboy's point seems to be that it seems inconsistent to want moderation in one type of network and not mind not having it in the other. Though, it's possible that the users supporting the moderation are different than those supporting e2e networks.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

drieddust 6y ago

Just emotions that sacrosanct capitol was breached by fascist Trump's supporters. That begs the question which platforms were used for organizing BLM riots for months and why there aren't any consequences? Companies claiming to uphold democracy are the worst offenders if it makes business or idealogical sense yet HN crowd is cheering. Look at how they are willing to suck upto China, Iran, and even Taliban. Disclaimer: Trump is a unreliable character so I don't like him personally a lot. But cheering up one-sided suppression without looking at the full picture is distasteful.

ende 6y ago
Cringe.
- drieddust 6y ago
  You say this without any data or evidence. I am not an American so I have no skin in this game.

ip26 6y ago

Parler is broadcast, Signal is point to point. It's a significant difference.

godelski 6y ago
Doesn't Telegram have broadcast (channels)? And isn't this a highly requested feature for Signal? This seems to be what will happen to any communication network unless restricted significantly.
- Natfan 6y ago
  Can't speak for Signal, but Telegram does have broadcasting via Channles. For example, I get a developer-friendly memes by @dev_meme
- ip26 6y ago
  They do- and Telegram has been shutting down channels for incitement of violence since at least 2015 https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/secret-messaging-app-telegram-shuts-down-channels-related-isis-n465757 https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/secre...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

mcint 6y ago

The existing platforms work well enough for people who aren’t kicked off of them, or hindered in sharing their views. Liking, caring about, or knowing of the existence of these new platforms is a strong proxy for the kinds of political views that some find easy and safe to hate on. Engagement inside Signal is with your existing networks and groups, and can only grow iteratively—not virally/exponentially—it’s a chat app. WhatsApp and Telegram do support and encourage broadcast oriented communication, and personally I do associate WhatsApp with misinformation-fueled violence in countries where it’s the first exposure people have to internet-style mass direct communication. Signal invented new cryptography to justify its existence. WhatsApp scaled chat, SMS-analogous to start, for the world to use. Telegram invented secret ways to MitM chat connections, and wasn’t under US influence. Parler exists to make a political statement in the current US political context.

erentz 6y ago

I believe the support for Signal comes from the privacy it offers from Facebook, et al., and by extension also possibly the government (Snowden, et al.), not because it can be used to coordinate violence.

jolmg 6y ago

I'm not sure of my own position, but I think the fundamental moral difference for those supporting moderation is that if one does have the ability to moderate, then they should have a moral obligation to do so. Technically, there's no central authority that can moderate Signal, so you can't have the moral obligation there. I don't think there would be a significant proportion of people that would advocate for Signal to become centralized so it would allow moderation by a central authority. Another perhaps more cynical take is that even if there is hate-speech and other undesirable communication in Signal, it's not seen so people aren't concerned about it. As they say, "out of sight, out of mind." That makes me wonder if expectations would change if people started publishing screenshots of Signal groups with hate-speech. I think they'd be pretty limited to small sizes, so perhaps they wouldn't be as concerning.

godelski 6y ago

I see the stances as very different. Parler is a social media site dedicated to extremism. While I believe in their 1st amendment right to exist (not all speech is protected though) I do not like this group. On the other hand I see companies like Signal and CloudFlare as being neutral. They have taken a position that they choose not to be the arbiters of right and wrong. These companies also aren't dedicated to extremism. I believe that being able to speak freely and make mistakes is an essential part of democracy. A privacy preserving platform protects this idea. If the service is dedicated to the public (aka neutral) then I think this is the right move. Extremists will (and have) congregate on Signal (as they do on WA, Telegram, Twitter, 4Chan, Facebook, etc). I see encryption orthogonal to the issue of extremism. This may make it a bit harder for security to monitor these groups (no dragnets), but if they are mass groups it won't be hard to infiltrate anyways. If a member of the public can get in then why can't someone from the CIA/NSA? It might as well be in clear text. If they can't infiltrate these groups then we have much bigger problems and everyone has been overestimating the power of these organizations for decades. So to sum up. I highly value privacy and security (especially as we're adding more to the internet. The danger is increasing). But I'm against extremism. It is a numbers game that more public members will gain value from privacy than the dozens of terrorists who will. But it is a different situation if someone creates a space dedicated to extremism. (I do think this is a very reasonable question to ask though) Edit: I wouldn't say that Signal will be completely unmoderated. Groups still have admins. But you're right that Signal won't be able to moderate. But this isn't that different from any federated platform.

shireboy 6y ago
Thank you for a very reasoned reply. I guess my fear for my karma was unfounded. ;) Two follow up questions: How do you objectively determine Parler is dedicated to extremism but Signal is not? I think Parler would argue (even if incorrect or insincerely) that they choose not to be the arbiter of right and wrong too, or at least to do so as minimally as possible. Since we can't see into Signal, we don't have any data on the % of messages dedicated to extremism. "If a member of the public can get in then why can't someone from the CIA/NSA? It might as well be in clear text. If they can't infiltrate these groups then we have much bigger problems". Isn't that an argument for allowing Parler to stand? It actually _is_ (er, well, was) clear text, and I would be _shocked_ if CIA/NSA weren't monitoring it. Wouldn't we be safer with bad guys coordinating on Parler than on Signal.

phlakaton 6y ago

As Signal has allegedly seen a huge boost in signups since Jan 6, I think this is a very pertinent and difficult question. The way I see it, Signal will not make it any easier for outsiders to get radicalized (there's no public forum aspect), but once people are already radicalized and connected, it can be used to great mischief. That said, I tend to be liberal on this topic, and I feel the benefits of across-the-board E2E encryption to society outweigh the risks. But it seems likely to me that that principle is about to be sorely tested.