6 ms·

To people who complain about deplatforming Parler, how would you feel about de-platforming a forum to recruit members for ISIS, or the Taliban? To me, Parler h

To people who complain about deplatforming Parler, how would you feel about de-platforming a forum to recruit members for ISIS, or the Taliban? To me, Parler has equivalencies - AWS linked to calls for violence that were made on Parler - The platform was actively suppressing non-conservative viewpoints I would recommend looking at r/ParlerWatch on Reddit

colordrops 6y ago
I saw many calls for violence by the left on twitter and even worse on reddit. "Punch a nazi" applied to anyone with any hint of right leanings, "Smash starbucks", even calls for killing republican politicians. etc And there was definitely suppression of non-liberal viewpoints on many sites. I don't agree with most conservative views, but I am not so tribal and blind to irony that I think it's ok to apply different standards to one side vs another. "But they are different!" - says the blindly loyal team player.
- xref 6y ago
  None of this is happening because someone posted “punch a lib”. Your argument is extremely disingenuous. You can read through AWS’s complaint against Parler and see some of the shocking content they refused to moderate.
  - colordrops 6y ago
    What is "this" you refer to when you say "None of this is happening"?
- Rapzid 6y ago
  The left.
  - colordrops 6y ago
    I would consider myself part of "the left". It's not an illusion or gross generalization. The entire US political system is explicitly separated into "the left" and "the right", similar to most other democracies.
zamadatix 6y ago
I don't think suppression of thoughts based on regional majority opinion is a net good or a reliable method of dealing with extremism, violence, or people we just don't like. Not only does what's acceptable vary by region but each region is unlikely to agree with itself from 100 years ago. That's not a knock on popular opinion it's just a knock on using it to decide what's acceptable to discuss as it's clearly not consistent. Some say violence is the separator except there seems to be plenty of acceptance of "good violence" whenever it's not the minority opinion doing it so again it doesn't seem like a consistent way to decide what's good to discuss. I hold the opinion that the only successful way to navigate to stability is education, open discourse, and constant discourse. The more in society that ignore other thoughts because they are convinced they are unequivocally correct on what's right or wrong (minority or majority) the more unstable society is going to be as they are driven to view everyone who thinks differently as the problem instead of searching for better answers.
plugger 6y ago
+1. I must admit I find it a bit rich that people are raising free speech issues around this situation. I find myself wondering where these people were in 2014 when all the major social media platforms systematically removed ISIS accounts and content from their systems. I don't recall anyone lamenting that move and the chilling effects it had on free speech. In fact, iirc the response was quite the opposite.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Is it possible to use a more extreme generalization than ISIS? On one hand you had ISIS posting beheading videos. On the other you had grandmas posting selfies in the rotunda. Yeah, there are some nutters out there. But to claim that everyone caught up in the tech purges is somehow equivalent to ISIS seems a bit rich from my perspective. Even if you accept that some of these people are genuine domestic terrorists, reasonable people should be able to distinguish between rogue elements and ISIS, an organized terror state. This is a bit like the claim that everyone who entered the Capitol Building was a terrorist. These are wide generalizations that only serve to confirm partisan biases. For me the use of these fallacious comparisons is illustrative of the problem at hand, toxic divisiveness.
  - mr_toad 6y ago
    It’s called reductio ad absurdum. Absolute free speech would have to include ISIS, a group that would (and has) killed people for what they say. If you admit that absolute free speech leads to illogical and impractical consequences, then the only remaining question is where to draw the line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      I'll agree that the comparison to ISIS is absurd.
      - cthalupa 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wolco5 6y ago
It's kind of like trying to shutdown all muslim media after 911 because some terrorist will be using it to inspire.
DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
> To people who complain about deplatforming Parler, how would you feel about de-platforming a forum to recruit members for ISIS, or the Taliban? That completely depends. 1. If the stated goal of the platform is onboarding for terrorist organizations, then that's a completely different situation. 2. If the platform is open, but known to be used as a main recruiting platform for such an organization, then I also don't think it should be shut down.
im3w1l 6y ago
ISIS literally commited a genocide.

colordrops 6y ago

I saw many calls for violence by the left on twitter and even worse on reddit. "Punch a nazi" applied to anyone with any hint of right leanings, "Smash starbucks", even calls for killing republican politicians. etc And there was definitely suppression of non-liberal viewpoints on many sites. I don't agree with most conservative views, but I am not so tribal and blind to irony that I think it's ok to apply different standards to one side vs another. "But they are different!" - says the blindly loyal team player.

xref 6y ago
None of this is happening because someone posted “punch a lib”. Your argument is extremely disingenuous. You can read through AWS’s complaint against Parler and see some of the shocking content they refused to moderate.
- colordrops 6y ago
  What is "this" you refer to when you say "None of this is happening"?
Rapzid 6y ago
The left.
- colordrops 6y ago
  I would consider myself part of "the left". It's not an illusion or gross generalization. The entire US political system is explicitly separated into "the left" and "the right", similar to most other democracies.

zamadatix 6y ago

I don't think suppression of thoughts based on regional majority opinion is a net good or a reliable method of dealing with extremism, violence, or people we just don't like. Not only does what's acceptable vary by region but each region is unlikely to agree with itself from 100 years ago. That's not a knock on popular opinion it's just a knock on using it to decide what's acceptable to discuss as it's clearly not consistent. Some say violence is the separator except there seems to be plenty of acceptance of "good violence" whenever it's not the minority opinion doing it so again it doesn't seem like a consistent way to decide what's good to discuss. I hold the opinion that the only successful way to navigate to stability is education, open discourse, and constant discourse. The more in society that ignore other thoughts because they are convinced they are unequivocally correct on what's right or wrong (minority or majority) the more unstable society is going to be as they are driven to view everyone who thinks differently as the problem instead of searching for better answers.

plugger 6y ago

+1. I must admit I find it a bit rich that people are raising free speech issues around this situation. I find myself wondering where these people were in 2014 when all the major social media platforms systematically removed ISIS accounts and content from their systems. I don't recall anyone lamenting that move and the chilling effects it had on free speech. In fact, iirc the response was quite the opposite.

aww_dang 6y ago
Is it possible to use a more extreme generalization than ISIS? On one hand you had ISIS posting beheading videos. On the other you had grandmas posting selfies in the rotunda. Yeah, there are some nutters out there. But to claim that everyone caught up in the tech purges is somehow equivalent to ISIS seems a bit rich from my perspective. Even if you accept that some of these people are genuine domestic terrorists, reasonable people should be able to distinguish between rogue elements and ISIS, an organized terror state. This is a bit like the claim that everyone who entered the Capitol Building was a terrorist. These are wide generalizations that only serve to confirm partisan biases. For me the use of these fallacious comparisons is illustrative of the problem at hand, toxic divisiveness.
- mr_toad 6y ago
  It’s called reductio ad absurdum. Absolute free speech would have to include ISIS, a group that would (and has) killed people for what they say. If you admit that absolute free speech leads to illogical and impractical consequences, then the only remaining question is where to draw the line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    I'll agree that the comparison to ISIS is absurd.
    - cthalupa 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

wolco5 6y ago

It's kind of like trying to shutdown all muslim media after 911 because some terrorist will be using it to inspire.

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago

> To people who complain about deplatforming Parler, how would you feel about de-platforming a forum to recruit members for ISIS, or the Taliban? That completely depends. 1. If the stated goal of the platform is onboarding for terrorist organizations, then that's a completely different situation. 2. If the platform is open, but known to be used as a main recruiting platform for such an organization, then I also don't think it should be shut down.

im3w1l 6y ago

ISIS literally commited a genocide.