10 ms·

I mean, yes, this is true, but Purism probably shouldn't be picking this hill to market on.

prionassembly 6y ago
It's a bit of a reputation risk, yes. We should be glad some people are willing to take it. "Democracy dies in darkness" or something.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  The insurrection directly was trying to kill our democracy by overriding a vote, the core guarantee of our democracy. But in general, I think "buy our product if you want to try to overthrow democracy" is just in general, a bad business strategy.
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    And the insurrection was planned more on FB than Parler. The FB app is still in the app stores.
    - jayd16 6y ago
      (As has been said many times already...) FB tries to moderate the violent comments, Parler did not.
      - Nextgrid 6y ago
        FB profited off the violence and only started moderating once the situation became unsustainable from a PR point of view. The reason this insurrection happened is because people were fed divisive, outrageous and false garbage for years for "engagement"'s sake.
        jayd16 6y ago
        Don't get me wrong, FB isn't free of blame. But its clear the reason they're treated different is because Parler took a black and white stance and FB is a value judgement and much harder to criticize.
        Nextgrid 6y ago
        Both Facebook and Parler ultimately have the same goals - make money out of people while bearing none of the consequences. Parler is just very explicit about this intention, where as Facebook wants you to believe something different but actually only behaves differently as little as needs to maintain the illusion. In this case, I respect Parler slightly more because at least they're upfront about it. Both are scum and both should go, but at least one is honest about their intentions. Parler also happens to cater to a common enemy with no political ties or PR appeal, where as Facebook gives you the illusion of being the good guy, all while making money off the same people Parler wants to cater to.
      - Proziam 6y ago
        I have seen no convincing evidence that Facebook and Twitter make good faith efforts to remove comments that incite violence, according to the letter of the law. To me, it looks like they selectively moderate the views that give them bad press (ISIS) and enjoy the massive engagement that comes from the conflict.
    - Nextgrid 6y ago
      FB is the reason why this event happened. People went there to talk with friends & family but were instead fed an endless stream of divisive, outrageous and false garbage to generate "engagement" for years. No surprise some of them went nuts.
  - prionassembly 6y ago
    I'm not looking to change your political beliefs, but if you assign an infinite value ("killing our democracy!" comes close) to one problem you'll be unable to weigh the coming dilemmas. Not "properly weigh", weigh at all. I'm well aware that the MAGA thing was well beyond a vandalizing mob. But that wasn't an organized coup either. If you let this become an "existential risk" that overrides all other concerns, you'll find yourself agreeing to some things a previous iteration of yourself would find unpalatable. Worse yet, you may come to regret it in 10 or 20 years.
    - tylerhou 6y ago
      > But that wasn't an organized coup either. What are your requirements for an "organized coup?" It seems to me that Parler hosted a bunch of discussion (one might call "organization") about how exactly to storm the capitol (and also refused to remove that discussion when Google/Apple/Amazon asked them to).
      - prionassembly 6y ago
        A coup assumes the capacity to take over. What, they’re going to delay the rite of electoral college certification and one month later the military, CIA, etc is answering to Trump? What do we know about involvement of actual officials beyond Trumpworld core? Was the FCC in on the insurrection? Usually a coup d’etat interrupts TV broadcasts immediately. Was there a plan at all? Edit: the insurrection didn’t even have snipers to try and kill retreating congressbeings. I don’t think it even qualifies as a terrorist act. The gravity of the situation (an election that’s really within a statistical margin of error - if the goal was to ascertain the preferences of a plurality) makes it more than mere vandalism, but emotions are running way too high here. The political climate may make the “terrorism” label stick. But there was nothing to it remotely resembling a coup.
        tylerhou 6y ago
        Your argument is basically: it wasn't a coup because it wasn't as sophisticated as many coups, or it didn't resemble many coups in the past. On the other hand, intent is usually a factor in determining a crime. If someone attempts to murder another person, they still commit the crime of attempted murder, regardless whether the murder was actually successful. So I'm not really convinced by the argument: "it wasn't a coup because it wasn't successful/sophisticated." Wikipedia defines a coup as > [The] removal of an existing government from power, usually through violent means. Typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, the military, or a dictator. Many scholars consider a coup d'état successful when the usurpers seize and hold power for at least seven days.[1] A coup attempt may refer to a coup in the works or an unsuccessful coup.[1]." The storm on the capitol fits Wikipedia's definition of an attempted coup: 1. It was an (admittedly incompetent) attempt at removing the existing government from power. (Capitol stormers wanted to force Pence to "declare" Trump as president, as well as capture or kill senators and representatives.) 2. The capitol storm was violent. Five people died, including a police officer. 3. The capitol storm was illegal and unconstitutional. Many stormers have been charged with crimes by the federal government. 4. The stormers wanted to seize power on behalf of the far-right/MAGA political faction. It's also worth noting that Wikipedia's definition has not changed since the Jan. 6th events [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&oldid=995559658 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
  - matz1 6y ago
    For democracy to work, the vote must be considered valid by all party. One party think the vote is not valid thus of course its expected for them to try to fight it.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      Yes, hence observers and such. But even then, there will always be people for who no amount of oversight will satisfy them that the votes were all legally submitted. They then go and sue, and when that fails they will still claim that their side won. For democracy to work it would be nice if people were using facts rather than fiction to base their worldview on. Unfortunately, that's no longer the case.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -H. L. Mencken
- tstrimple 6y ago
  Well if someone dead said it and it was important enough to put quotes around, it must be true! "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." ~ Karl Popper
  - NeonVice 6y ago
    Many users wanted a free (as in freedom) platform and Parler provided it. Parler wasn't intolerant. Parler wasn't advocating for Twitter to be taken offline. Based on his heart tweet, Jack sure was happy when Parler was removed from the App Store. Jack is the intolerant one.
    - tstrimple 6y ago
      No, Parler wasn't a platform for "freedom". It was a platform for right wing ideologues and frequently banned left wing content but had trouble cleaning up death threats. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...
      - NeonVice 6y ago
        Twitter can't clean up that garbage either and is also used by extremists. However, Twitter has not been deplatformed.
    - _kbh_ 6y ago

It's a bit of a reputation risk, yes. We should be glad some people are willing to take it. "Democracy dies in darkness" or something.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
The insurrection directly was trying to kill our democracy by overriding a vote, the core guarantee of our democracy. But in general, I think "buy our product if you want to try to overthrow democracy" is just in general, a bad business strategy.
- aidenn0 6y ago
  And the insurrection was planned more on FB than Parler. The FB app is still in the app stores.
  - jayd16 6y ago
    (As has been said many times already...) FB tries to moderate the violent comments, Parler did not.
    - Nextgrid 6y ago
      FB profited off the violence and only started moderating once the situation became unsustainable from a PR point of view. The reason this insurrection happened is because people were fed divisive, outrageous and false garbage for years for "engagement"'s sake.
      - jayd16 6y ago
        Don't get me wrong, FB isn't free of blame. But its clear the reason they're treated different is because Parler took a black and white stance and FB is a value judgement and much harder to criticize.
        Nextgrid 6y ago
        Both Facebook and Parler ultimately have the same goals - make money out of people while bearing none of the consequences. Parler is just very explicit about this intention, where as Facebook wants you to believe something different but actually only behaves differently as little as needs to maintain the illusion. In this case, I respect Parler slightly more because at least they're upfront about it. Both are scum and both should go, but at least one is honest about their intentions. Parler also happens to cater to a common enemy with no political ties or PR appeal, where as Facebook gives you the illusion of being the good guy, all while making money off the same people Parler wants to cater to.
    - Proziam 6y ago
      I have seen no convincing evidence that Facebook and Twitter make good faith efforts to remove comments that incite violence, according to the letter of the law. To me, it looks like they selectively moderate the views that give them bad press (ISIS) and enjoy the massive engagement that comes from the conflict.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    FB is the reason why this event happened. People went there to talk with friends & family but were instead fed an endless stream of divisive, outrageous and false garbage to generate "engagement" for years. No surprise some of them went nuts.
- prionassembly 6y ago
  I'm not looking to change your political beliefs, but if you assign an infinite value ("killing our democracy!" comes close) to one problem you'll be unable to weigh the coming dilemmas. Not "properly weigh", weigh at all. I'm well aware that the MAGA thing was well beyond a vandalizing mob. But that wasn't an organized coup either. If you let this become an "existential risk" that overrides all other concerns, you'll find yourself agreeing to some things a previous iteration of yourself would find unpalatable. Worse yet, you may come to regret it in 10 or 20 years.
  - tylerhou 6y ago
    > But that wasn't an organized coup either. What are your requirements for an "organized coup?" It seems to me that Parler hosted a bunch of discussion (one might call "organization") about how exactly to storm the capitol (and also refused to remove that discussion when Google/Apple/Amazon asked them to).
    - prionassembly 6y ago
      A coup assumes the capacity to take over. What, they’re going to delay the rite of electoral college certification and one month later the military, CIA, etc is answering to Trump? What do we know about involvement of actual officials beyond Trumpworld core? Was the FCC in on the insurrection? Usually a coup d’etat interrupts TV broadcasts immediately. Was there a plan at all? Edit: the insurrection didn’t even have snipers to try and kill retreating congressbeings. I don’t think it even qualifies as a terrorist act. The gravity of the situation (an election that’s really within a statistical margin of error - if the goal was to ascertain the preferences of a plurality) makes it more than mere vandalism, but emotions are running way too high here. The political climate may make the “terrorism” label stick. But there was nothing to it remotely resembling a coup.
      - tylerhou 6y ago
        Your argument is basically: it wasn't a coup because it wasn't as sophisticated as many coups, or it didn't resemble many coups in the past. On the other hand, intent is usually a factor in determining a crime. If someone attempts to murder another person, they still commit the crime of attempted murder, regardless whether the murder was actually successful. So I'm not really convinced by the argument: "it wasn't a coup because it wasn't successful/sophisticated." Wikipedia defines a coup as > [The] removal of an existing government from power, usually through violent means. Typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, the military, or a dictator. Many scholars consider a coup d'état successful when the usurpers seize and hold power for at least seven days.[1] A coup attempt may refer to a coup in the works or an unsuccessful coup.[1]." The storm on the capitol fits Wikipedia's definition of an attempted coup: 1. It was an (admittedly incompetent) attempt at removing the existing government from power. (Capitol stormers wanted to force Pence to "declare" Trump as president, as well as capture or kill senators and representatives.) 2. The capitol storm was violent. Five people died, including a police officer. 3. The capitol storm was illegal and unconstitutional. Many stormers have been charged with crimes by the federal government. 4. The stormers wanted to seize power on behalf of the far-right/MAGA political faction. It's also worth noting that Wikipedia's definition has not changed since the Jan. 6th events [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&oldid=995559658 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
- matz1 6y ago
  For democracy to work, the vote must be considered valid by all party. One party think the vote is not valid thus of course its expected for them to try to fight it.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    Yes, hence observers and such. But even then, there will always be people for who no amount of oversight will satisfy them that the votes were all legally submitted. They then go and sue, and when that fails they will still claim that their side won. For democracy to work it would be nice if people were using facts rather than fiction to base their worldview on. Unfortunately, that's no longer the case.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -H. L. Mencken

tstrimple 6y ago
Well if someone dead said it and it was important enough to put quotes around, it must be true! "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." ~ Karl Popper
- NeonVice 6y ago
  Many users wanted a free (as in freedom) platform and Parler provided it. Parler wasn't intolerant. Parler wasn't advocating for Twitter to be taken offline. Based on his heart tweet, Jack sure was happy when Parler was removed from the App Store. Jack is the intolerant one.
  - tstrimple 6y ago
    No, Parler wasn't a platform for "freedom". It was a platform for right wing ideologues and frequently banned left wing content but had trouble cleaning up death threats. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...
    - NeonVice 6y ago
      Twitter can't clean up that garbage either and is also used by extremists. However, Twitter has not been deplatformed.
  - _kbh_ 6y ago