4 ms·

> You cannot cut someone's power because they broadcast a death threat from their house. This is a bad, needlessly hyperbolic analogy. The reasons there are r

> You cannot cut someone's power because they broadcast a death threat from their house. This is a bad, needlessly hyperbolic analogy. The reasons there are regulations prohibiting the shutoff of utilities is that these are basic needs without which people can be directly harmed (often very seriously, if you cut off heating in the winter, etc...). There is no similar human rights mandate for a Parler account. I'm not saying I disagree that some level of regulation is appropriate. But this issue is (for somewhat obvious reasons) being wildly overstated. Parler was shut down for explicitly violent rhetoric which inspired real political violence, period. Surely everyone agrees that this particular speech should have been banned, right? We just disagree about the specifics of how it should be done. If so, why are we screaming so loud about "Silicon Valley" showing "Monopolistic Force"? Is hyperbole really the answer here? Or is it an attempt to deflect discussion from things that seem a little more important at the moment?

grecy 6y ago
> There is no similar human rights mandate for a Parler account Canada considers internet access a basic human right, and it's pretty clear the rest of the world will move in that direction shortly. I think it's very clear you can harm a person by cutting them off from the world / loved ones, news, etc. Especially in communities that have no outside access other than internet based. Maybe not Parler specifically, but certainly internet access. And if the vast majority of the world and people around you are getting news and info and social life from <website>, it could be argued that denying access to <website> will harm a person.
- root_axis 6y ago
  Getting banned from a social media site doesn't remove one's access to the internet.
  - bob1029 6y ago
    What about banning the actual social media site from the internet?
    - Jochim 6y ago
      That also doesn't remove your access to the Internet. They also weren't banned. Their hosting provider refused to continue hosting them. There are thousands of competing companies out there they can take their business to.
    - BryantD 6y ago
      Human rights are not the same thing as corporate rights.
    - minhazm 6y ago
      This is like all the grocery stores choosing not to carry brand of product in their grocery stores. You didn't lose access to the grocery store. That brand can start their own grocery store and host their own product if they want to. Tons of companies host their own infrastructure.
- newacct583 6y ago
  And similarly: likening the banning of one site that was a hotbed of rhetoric akin to (or directly related to) a serious incident of political violence to the "vast majority of people around you" losing all internet access is senselessly hyperbolic and unhelpful. If we grant that the reason we're currently in this crisis of democracy is that people are addicted to an outrage machine (stop the steal, #resistance, whatever), then maybe it's our job to get us off the train. Why can't banning Parler just be about banning Parler and not an assault on democracy or whatever? I mean, we all agree that the kind of speech banned should be banned somehow, right?
- pbourke 6y ago
  >> There is no similar human rights mandate for a Parler account >Canada considers internet access a basic human right, and it's pretty clear the rest of the world will move in that direction shortly. Having a Parler account and having access to the internet are two different things. Funny that you mention Canada. Parler would likely have trouble existing as a Canadian entity due to Canada’s hate speech laws and the courts’ propensity to leave carriers exposed to liability for hosting content that violates those laws. Also, the Canadian government has a broad power to restrict speech in times of crisis through the War Measures Act. They could easily have switched a site like Parler off if a similar event occurred.
sershe 6y ago
No, I don't agree that "this speech" ought to be banned, and also not in this particular manner. First of all, were %%ge of Parler posts contained incitement? I honestly have no idea, but I suspect it's by far not the majority. More importantly, Brandenburg case is a pretty good standard for banning speech as far as I'm concerned, and it's a pretty high bar. What %%ge of Parler posts met THAT standard?

grecy 6y ago

> There is no similar human rights mandate for a Parler account Canada considers internet access a basic human right, and it's pretty clear the rest of the world will move in that direction shortly. I think it's very clear you can harm a person by cutting them off from the world / loved ones, news, etc. Especially in communities that have no outside access other than internet based. Maybe not Parler specifically, but certainly internet access. And if the vast majority of the world and people around you are getting news and info and social life from <website>, it could be argued that denying access to <website> will harm a person.

root_axis 6y ago
Getting banned from a social media site doesn't remove one's access to the internet.
- bob1029 6y ago
  What about banning the actual social media site from the internet?
  - Jochim 6y ago
    That also doesn't remove your access to the Internet. They also weren't banned. Their hosting provider refused to continue hosting them. There are thousands of competing companies out there they can take their business to.
  - BryantD 6y ago
    Human rights are not the same thing as corporate rights.
  - minhazm 6y ago
    This is like all the grocery stores choosing not to carry brand of product in their grocery stores. You didn't lose access to the grocery store. That brand can start their own grocery store and host their own product if they want to. Tons of companies host their own infrastructure.
newacct583 6y ago
And similarly: likening the banning of one site that was a hotbed of rhetoric akin to (or directly related to) a serious incident of political violence to the "vast majority of people around you" losing all internet access is senselessly hyperbolic and unhelpful. If we grant that the reason we're currently in this crisis of democracy is that people are addicted to an outrage machine (stop the steal, #resistance, whatever), then maybe it's our job to get us off the train. Why can't banning Parler just be about banning Parler and not an assault on democracy or whatever? I mean, we all agree that the kind of speech banned should be banned somehow, right?
pbourke 6y ago
>> There is no similar human rights mandate for a Parler account >Canada considers internet access a basic human right, and it's pretty clear the rest of the world will move in that direction shortly. Having a Parler account and having access to the internet are two different things. Funny that you mention Canada. Parler would likely have trouble existing as a Canadian entity due to Canada’s hate speech laws and the courts’ propensity to leave carriers exposed to liability for hosting content that violates those laws. Also, the Canadian government has a broad power to restrict speech in times of crisis through the War Measures Act. They could easily have switched a site like Parler off if a similar event occurred.

sershe 6y ago

No, I don't agree that "this speech" ought to be banned, and also not in this particular manner. First of all, were %%ge of Parler posts contained incitement? I honestly have no idea, but I suspect it's by far not the majority. More importantly, Brandenburg case is a pretty good standard for banning speech as far as I'm concerned, and it's a pretty high bar. What %%ge of Parler posts met THAT standard?