4 ms·
Gonna disagree there a bit, semantically. Parler was a no-censorship social site, open to everyone. Extreme right-wing people flocked to it while very few peopl
by kevwil 6y ago
Gonna disagree there a bit, semantically. Parler was a no-censorship social site, open to everyone. Extreme right-wing people flocked to it while very few people with other perspectives did. Parler being a hate site was not purely of their making, but rather a result of society's bias toward silencing opposing views. We need more people like Daryl Davis (a black jass musician who has converted hundreds of KKK members through kindness and friendship and music) so that censorship seems less and less like a good idea.
I'm not surprised at the end result, but the effort to retain free speech was a valiant one. Forcing extremist views underground doesn't silence them, it emboldens them and makes it harder to know what they're up to. Not a good idea.
- MrMan 6y ago"society's bias toward silencing opposing views." censorship is NOT the underlying problem here
- ForHackernews 6y agoI don't think this is exactly true, according to other seemingly well-informed comments on this site, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25731121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25731121 Parler was moderated, and it was explicitly moderated for coherence with a right-wing/reactionary viewpoint. It was not a neutral, unfiltered platform.
- Miner49er 6y ago> Parler was a no-censorship social site, open to everyone. This is just false. They censored all kinds of things: antifa, parody accounts, obscene usernames, porn, etc. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200630/23525844821/parler-speedruns-content-moderation-learning-curve-goes-we-allow-everything-to-were-good-censors-days.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200630/23525844821/parle...