4 ms·
Taking down Parler was certainly not justified, but I agree it was one step down the slippery slope that normalizes this kind of brazen gatekeeping on essential
by throwawaysea 6y ago
Taking down Parler was certainly not justified, but I agree it was one step down the slippery slope that normalizes this kind of brazen gatekeeping on essential public utilities like app stores. Facebook played a much larger role in the planning of the riot at the capitol riots (https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/07/sheryl-sandberg-downplayed-facebooks-role-in-the-capitol-hill-siege-justice-department-files-tell-a-very-different-story/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/07/shery...) and they faced no consequences, presumably because they share the same political culture as Google and Apple.
It's also a gross overreaction to shut down Parler because the vast majority of people using Parler or supporting Trump did not participate in the riot. Tens of thousands were in DC that day for various rallies and protests, and thousands stayed outside the barricades at the capitol. A few hundred went past them as protesters (rioters?), but committed no additional crimes beyond trespassing, which is the same as past incidents at the capitol like the riots at Brett Kavanaugh hearings (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/405500-212-protesters-total-arrested-during-kavanaugh-hearings https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/405500-212-protesters-to...). Ultimately only 10 were associated with the Oath Keepers (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/29/us/oath-keepers-capitol-riot.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/29/us/oath-keepe...).
And on the balance, Parler had 20 million users (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler) and Trump had north of 70 million supporters. It's not justifiable to stop all those people from having a voice. How was it at all justifiable for AOC to demand Parler be shutdown, for tech companies to immediately fall in line by banning the app, and for other companies to also participate in a seemingly coordinated deplatforming effort? It's also chilling to consider that a sitting legislator can call for the shutdown of the speech of private citizens - that amounts to the government coercing bans of speech from private organizations, and is a first amendment violation.
Either way, here we are, in a world where people depend on their mobile phones as utilities, but are serviced by companies that are not regulated as public utilities. They need to either stop being gatekeepers, and act neutrally, or they need to be regulated to enforce that requirement. After all, they are effectively immune to competition.
- elastolin 6y agoAgreed, it makes zero sense. And AOC is symbol of the decline of the United States.
- Griffinsauce 6y ago> How was it at all justifiable for AOC to demand Parler be shutdown, for tech companies to immediately fall in line That's not what happened and you know it. AOC wasn't a singular voice, there were lots of people calling for Parler to be shut down. I'm not going to engage with the rest of it, but this point is important because it's being used to demonize another human being. You're repeating a narrative without scrutinizing it, please be more critical.
- odshoifsdhfs 6y agoI am not American or follow US politics that much, but did she ask for Parler to be shutdown? If she did, even if others did as well, it should be ok to point her out on this. Specially (from what I understand from seeing some of her twitter posts on Reddit) if she is very vocal on Twitter (reminded me of accusing Ted Cruz of trying to assassinate her tweet) about these things and can rally support for it through social media.
- Griffinsauce 6y ago> If she did, even if others did as well, it should be ok to point her out on this That exactly my point, the original comment points her out as the only or the main voice. That is just not true, it paints a skewed picture. She was either joining the choir of voices or preaching to it. The goal of that characterisation is to demonize this one person into the source of this action. (ironically often combined with an irrational faceless "the left" to dehumanize further) We can talk about what the influence is of a person in that position and whether it's ethical to join in such a call but that is a completely different can of worms and not what I was commenting on. Stacking "this person did it" with "this person abused their power" is irresponsible without examining each statement.
- 6y ago