6 ms·

Parler is a shit hole, and at this point I’m not sure we need another social network anything. The major ones do a lousy job of policing fake news and misinform

by ThomW 6y ago

Parler is a shit hole, and at this point I’m not sure we need another social network anything. The major ones do a lousy job of policing fake news and misinformation, and from your tone it sounds like you support that garbage. I’m pretty sure giving every moron on earth a globally-accessible soapbox is about the stupidest idea humankind has ever had.

drukenemo 6y ago
The first problem it pops-out when I read your comment is that you are sure your opinions represent the good and opinions that go against yours are objectively the evil. Censoring what is not what you want to express is thus virtuous. Imagine for a moment that this platform would be against calling for “censoring morons” and thus your comment banned.
- ThomW 6y ago
  If the same folks who believe that building a bulletproof Parler is a good idea think I'm a moron, I think I'm in a pretty good position morally.
tanseydavid 6y ago
These exact same things were said about the printing-press when it was the epitome of new, high-technology.
- mlindner 6y ago
  Before the printing press came out, literally no one had a voice. It was simply too expensive. Printing press actually allowed some people to have a voice, but you still needed money to fund it. Going back to an era where you need money to have a voice wouldn't be a bad idea. A good start would be to outlaw any social network from also running an ad network, for-pay social networks only. Then I'd know only people who actually cared would be saying things.
bilbo0s 6y ago
Who was the guy who said, "There's no such thing as a 'stupid' idea, only great ideas that go horribly wrong." It's all about the context, and having the requisite creativity to see the drawbacks on the horizon. I think social media and surveillance marketing are good examples of what he was probably talking about. (Actually, IIRC, the quote was in relation to dating strippers, but you get the idea.)
JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
> I’m pretty sure giving every moron on earth a globally-accessible soapbox is about the s̶t̶u̶p̶i̶d̶e̶s̶t̶ most profitable idea humankind has ever had.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  A gentle reminder that Facebook is the 6th largest US company by market capitalization of $744 billion. We may not like that, but it's the truth.
wrycoder 6y ago
After blocking a few obvious idiots, my main take on Parler is that it’s really boring. There are a few “thought leaders” (without much diversity), each followed by a tedious and repetitive peanut gallery. I’m getting far more from reading on Substack.
tone 6y ago
I'm not sure how anyone holds this opinion. Do you really believe that this will result in fair, unbiased reporting? Who is the long-term great arbiter not only of the news but removal of non-news? I'm also not sure why your worldview seems to be that given access to all opinions, the stupidest ones too, people will not and cannot learn to make informed judgements for themselves. You will see some stupidity but it's a very bleak and arrogant worldview to presume that people are incapable of making rational decisions given information and time.
- mcguire 6y ago
  Arguments in bad faith drive out those in good faith. "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past." -- Jean-Paul Sartre
  - leereeves 6y ago
    Automated or crowdsourced moderation don't counter that; they reinforce it. Look at Twitter and reddit, two sites where it's impossible to have a serious discussion because those who hold platform-approved opinions "like to play with discourse" and "seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert." "They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly" for fear of the moderators. Skilled, professional, human moderation might counter that, but doesn't scale.
- mlindner 6y ago
  > Do you really believe that this will result in fair, unbiased reporting? One could make the argument that the eras in which only those who had money or political power had a real voice resulted in a more stable society. Allow everyone to have a voice (full freedom of speech) but outlaw platforms that truly try to give a voice to everyone. If someone really wants to put out a message they can go to the street corner and shout whatever they like, no matter how bad it is, unrestricted.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
imbnwa 6y ago
- James Madison

by ThomW 6y ago

drukenemo 6y ago

The first problem it pops-out when I read your comment is that you are sure your opinions represent the good and opinions that go against yours are objectively the evil. Censoring what is not what you want to express is thus virtuous. Imagine for a moment that this platform would be against calling for “censoring morons” and thus your comment banned.

ThomW 6y ago
If the same folks who believe that building a bulletproof Parler is a good idea think I'm a moron, I think I'm in a pretty good position morally.

tanseydavid 6y ago

These exact same things were said about the printing-press when it was the epitome of new, high-technology.

mlindner 6y ago
Before the printing press came out, literally no one had a voice. It was simply too expensive. Printing press actually allowed some people to have a voice, but you still needed money to fund it. Going back to an era where you need money to have a voice wouldn't be a bad idea. A good start would be to outlaw any social network from also running an ad network, for-pay social networks only. Then I'd know only people who actually cared would be saying things.

bilbo0s 6y ago

Who was the guy who said, "There's no such thing as a 'stupid' idea, only great ideas that go horribly wrong." It's all about the context, and having the requisite creativity to see the drawbacks on the horizon. I think social media and surveillance marketing are good examples of what he was probably talking about. (Actually, IIRC, the quote was in relation to dating strippers, but you get the idea.)

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago

> I’m pretty sure giving every moron on earth a globally-accessible soapbox is about the s̶t̶u̶p̶i̶d̶e̶s̶t̶ most profitable idea humankind has ever had.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
A gentle reminder that Facebook is the 6th largest US company by market capitalization of $744 billion. We may not like that, but it's the truth.

wrycoder 6y ago

After blocking a few obvious idiots, my main take on Parler is that it’s really boring. There are a few “thought leaders” (without much diversity), each followed by a tedious and repetitive peanut gallery. I’m getting far more from reading on Substack.

tone 6y ago

I'm not sure how anyone holds this opinion. Do you really believe that this will result in fair, unbiased reporting? Who is the long-term great arbiter not only of the news but removal of non-news? I'm also not sure why your worldview seems to be that given access to all opinions, the stupidest ones too, people will not and cannot learn to make informed judgements for themselves. You will see some stupidity but it's a very bleak and arrogant worldview to presume that people are incapable of making rational decisions given information and time.

mcguire 6y ago
Arguments in bad faith drive out those in good faith. "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past." -- Jean-Paul Sartre
- leereeves 6y ago
  Automated or crowdsourced moderation don't counter that; they reinforce it. Look at Twitter and reddit, two sites where it's impossible to have a serious discussion because those who hold platform-approved opinions "like to play with discourse" and "seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert." "They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly" for fear of the moderators. Skilled, professional, human moderation might counter that, but doesn't scale.
mlindner 6y ago
> Do you really believe that this will result in fair, unbiased reporting? One could make the argument that the eras in which only those who had money or political power had a real voice resulted in a more stable society. Allow everyone to have a voice (full freedom of speech) but outlaw platforms that truly try to give a voice to everyone. If someone really wants to put out a message they can go to the street corner and shout whatever they like, no matter how bad it is, unrestricted.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

imbnwa 6y ago

- James Madison