3 ms·

> this is never acceptable I want you to understand what I'm about to say. Understand it in your bones: it is unacceptable to me and to you and it is reprehens

> this is never acceptable I want you to understand what I'm about to say. Understand it in your bones: it is unacceptable to me and to you and it is reprehensible; and beliefs that you hold dear will someday, by someone, be seen as unacceptable and reprehensible. To protect the speech of the reprehensible is to protect your own speech. That's what I would like you to understand. David Goldberger didn't defend the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie because he is a Nazi, but to defend his (and all of our) rights. https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/sk... The people who planned actual murders and crimes must be caught and punished. But if "planning and executing crimes" is the standard by which platforms should be shut down, then Facebook also should be shut down.

mschuster91 6y ago
> To protect the speech of the reprehensible is to protect your own speech. That's what I would like you to understand. Actually, even in the US there are exceptions - namedly when speech is likely to incite crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
- rendall 6y ago
  Indeed! We weren't talking about the 1st Amendment, but let's go where you lead: speech likely to incite imminent lawless action is illegal. Courts decide if that applies. Someday you might say "Politician Y should be hung by his thumbs". Politician Y and friends try to convince a judge that you thereby incite imminent lawless action. Of course, you were just feeling passionate, and no one reasonable would believe that you meant it. Thankfully, due to strong 1A protections, the case would not proceed. But if you wrote that on a site hosted on AWS, there is nothing in principle from Amazon taking the platform down. Politician Y calls his buddy Jeff Bezos, and fwoomp! Gone. This should be concerning.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > But if you wrote that on a site hosted on AWS, there is nothing in principle from Amazon taking the platform down. The 1st Amendment (and its European equivalents) usually only bind the government, not private entities. There is nothing per se preventing you (or Parler) to build their own datacenter or use another hoster - there is no "human right" to be able to use AWS. However, what still remains is that every company has the right to refuse service to an entity that is suspected of criminal activity - and the onus is on Parler to prove they will not serve as a planning platform for criminals.
  - Jochim 6y ago
    > But if you wrote that on a site hosted on AWS, there is nothing in principle from Amazon taking the platform down. Politician Y calls his buddy Jeff Bezos, and fwoomp! Gone. This should be concerning. Why should it be concerning at all? There are a few thousand other hosting providers they can go to. The slightly stronger argument seems to be that the people making these death threats on Parler should not have been banned from Twitter/FB in the first place. FB/Twitter have far less competition and most of their value is in the network effects they've established. The tech giants should absolutely be broken up/more heavily regulated, but I think there are much better examples of why than Parler.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      > The slightly stronger argument seems to be that the people making these death threats on Parler should not have been banned from Twitter/FB in the first place. That's not a strong argument at all. Spouting death threats gets you arrested if you do it in public (and someone records it or calls the cops), so it should also lead to a time-limited or permanent ban from social networks. Social networks are not a free-for-all zone.
      - Jochim 6y ago
        > That's not a strong argument at all. I don't think it's a strong argument either, I just think it's slightly stronger than the one people are trying to use for why AWS should be forced to host Parler. > Spouting death threats gets you arrested if you do it in public (and someone records it or calls the cops), so it should also lead to a time-limited or permanent ban from social networks. The argument from people coming out against the moderation of these threats seems to be that FB/Twitter etc. should only remove this content after receiving some sort of court order/government mandate to do so, that they shouldn't "play cop" as it were. Personally this seems like a pretty stupid take. > Social networks are not a free-for-all zone. Some people are arguing that the should be, that they should be treated as the equivalent of a modern town square. I don't necessarily agree with this take, but I can see why people might think that way.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> But if “planning and executing crimes” is the standard by which platforms should be shut down Planning an executing crimes is the standard by which those doing so should be shut down. Ideally, by the actor as close as possible and able to do so with minimal collateral damage. But a second-order platform that determines a first-order platform is systematically incapable or unwilling to do that does not act improperly in cutting service to the first order platform .
ccortes 6y ago
> But if "planning and executing crimes" is the standard by which platforms should be shut down, then Facebook also should be shut down. That's fine by me tbh
- sethammons 6y ago
  Not all crimes are created equal. It is illegal to use clotheslines to dry clothes in New York City. A protest to remove the law may involve using clotheslines. Would you deplatform for that? Note, the reason why it is illegal goes back to preventing protesters from hanging up their banners / messages. An act to legally silence opponents.

mschuster91 6y ago

> To protect the speech of the reprehensible is to protect your own speech. That's what I would like you to understand. Actually, even in the US there are exceptions - namedly when speech is likely to incite crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

rendall 6y ago
Indeed! We weren't talking about the 1st Amendment, but let's go where you lead: speech likely to incite imminent lawless action is illegal. Courts decide if that applies. Someday you might say "Politician Y should be hung by his thumbs". Politician Y and friends try to convince a judge that you thereby incite imminent lawless action. Of course, you were just feeling passionate, and no one reasonable would believe that you meant it. Thankfully, due to strong 1A protections, the case would not proceed. But if you wrote that on a site hosted on AWS, there is nothing in principle from Amazon taking the platform down. Politician Y calls his buddy Jeff Bezos, and fwoomp! Gone. This should be concerning.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > But if you wrote that on a site hosted on AWS, there is nothing in principle from Amazon taking the platform down. The 1st Amendment (and its European equivalents) usually only bind the government, not private entities. There is nothing per se preventing you (or Parler) to build their own datacenter or use another hoster - there is no "human right" to be able to use AWS. However, what still remains is that every company has the right to refuse service to an entity that is suspected of criminal activity - and the onus is on Parler to prove they will not serve as a planning platform for criminals.
- Jochim 6y ago
  > But if you wrote that on a site hosted on AWS, there is nothing in principle from Amazon taking the platform down. Politician Y calls his buddy Jeff Bezos, and fwoomp! Gone. This should be concerning. Why should it be concerning at all? There are a few thousand other hosting providers they can go to. The slightly stronger argument seems to be that the people making these death threats on Parler should not have been banned from Twitter/FB in the first place. FB/Twitter have far less competition and most of their value is in the network effects they've established. The tech giants should absolutely be broken up/more heavily regulated, but I think there are much better examples of why than Parler.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > The slightly stronger argument seems to be that the people making these death threats on Parler should not have been banned from Twitter/FB in the first place. That's not a strong argument at all. Spouting death threats gets you arrested if you do it in public (and someone records it or calls the cops), so it should also lead to a time-limited or permanent ban from social networks. Social networks are not a free-for-all zone.
    - Jochim 6y ago
      > That's not a strong argument at all. I don't think it's a strong argument either, I just think it's slightly stronger than the one people are trying to use for why AWS should be forced to host Parler. > Spouting death threats gets you arrested if you do it in public (and someone records it or calls the cops), so it should also lead to a time-limited or permanent ban from social networks. The argument from people coming out against the moderation of these threats seems to be that FB/Twitter etc. should only remove this content after receiving some sort of court order/government mandate to do so, that they shouldn't "play cop" as it were. Personally this seems like a pretty stupid take. > Social networks are not a free-for-all zone. Some people are arguing that the should be, that they should be treated as the equivalent of a modern town square. I don't necessarily agree with this take, but I can see why people might think that way.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> But if “planning and executing crimes” is the standard by which platforms should be shut down Planning an executing crimes is the standard by which those doing so should be shut down. Ideally, by the actor as close as possible and able to do so with minimal collateral damage. But a second-order platform that determines a first-order platform is systematically incapable or unwilling to do that does not act improperly in cutting service to the first order platform .

ccortes 6y ago

> But if "planning and executing crimes" is the standard by which platforms should be shut down, then Facebook also should be shut down. That's fine by me tbh

sethammons 6y ago
Not all crimes are created equal. It is illegal to use clotheslines to dry clothes in New York City. A protest to remove the law may involve using clotheslines. Would you deplatform for that? Note, the reason why it is illegal goes back to preventing protesters from hanging up their banners / messages. An act to legally silence opponents.