5 ms·

This is wildly underplaying what actually happened. Parler wasn't "censored" because it contained "new stories" that were "remotely controversial". Parler was

This is wildly underplaying what actually happened. Parler wasn't "censored" because it contained "new stories" that were "remotely controversial". Parler was blocked because of rampant unmoderated violent content that correlated with real world political violence. Look, when you have major thought leaders on your platform calling for the VP to be executed, you need to expect some repercussions when a mob takes the rotunda screaming "Hang Mike Pence!".

zepto 5y ago
> when you have major thought leaders on your platform calling for the VP to be executed This doesn’t seem sufficient to me. Given that the US has the death penalty at all, how can we declare that it is not ok for people to call for it when they believe a crime has been committed? Organizing an extrajudicial mob to carry it out, is another thing entirely, but just calling for it seems like it can’t be enough.
- newacct583 5y ago
  > This doesn’t seem sufficient to me. Nonetheless it did to Twitter, and it seems like a very reasonable position. I mean, fine, if the free-speech-above-all-reason crowd wants to literally call for people to be killed and excuse that with "but AKSHOOALLY we're talking about the legal government exercise of the death penalty", then... OK. I think there's a reasonable argument that you have a first amendment right to do it. But fuck right off with your demands to do it on MY platform, because AKSHOOALLY the first amendment constrains only the government and not my right to publish what I want on my hardware.
  - kokanator 5y ago
    Make sure your aim isn't to justify your own beliefs. Seems like this is calling for what your are opposed to an it isn't censored. https://twitter.com/hashtag/killcops?lang=en https://twitter.com/hashtag/killcops?lang=en
    - newacct583 5y ago
      It sure looks censored to me. I see only three tweets at that link, one calling for NOT shooting cops and the other two are just textless retweets of non-violent content that happens to include the hashtag. If Twitter is allowing a #killcops hashtag to proliferate containing actual threats, then they should absolutely be blocking it. Seriously?
  - zepto 5y ago
    > But fuck right off with your demands to do it on MY platform, Who is making such demands? > because AKSHOOALLY Do you intend this as respectful discussion? > the first amendment constrains only the government and not my right to publish what I want on my hardware. Sure, but it not clear how that is relevant to the comment you are replying to.
    - newacct583 5y ago
      If you missed it, the point under discussion is Apple having removed Parler's access to the app store (and by extension similar action taken against Parler by other providers like Amazon). Apple, Parler and Amazon are all private entities not directly constrained by the first amendment. Why does that technicality matter? Because it eludidates the hypocrisy of trying to claim that Lin Wood's call for Pence's execution was "technically" a call for a legal trial and execution and not for the mob violence that actually resulted. Which was a ridiculous argument.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > Because it eludidates the hypocrisy of trying to claim that Lin Wood's call for Pence's execution was "technically" a call for a legal trial and execution and not for the mob violence that actually resulted. Who do you think is trying to claim that?
        newacct583 5y ago
        Um... you, upthread: "Given that the US has the death penalty at all, how can we declare that it is not ok for people to call for it when they believe a crime has been committed?"
        zepto 5y ago
        Why do you think that is a claim about Lin Wood?
- jariel 5y ago
  There's nothing really comparable between calling for someone's assassination, and on the other hand, someone to be arrested and brought to justice for a crime. And there's also the fact that there's no basis in reality for the claims to be begin with. In all of this confusion, it is true that Parler was essentially (Edit: not! obviously 'not' moderated)moderated - and - there was a lot of really terrible stuff happening there. Like 'kill these people'. The cover that Twitter can use is that they actual do moderate people and try to get rid of them. Mostly. Parler must have had a huge leadership failure to play that game and think they were going to get away with it. There is zero chance that hosting people directly calling for violence, unmoderated, is going to last when associated with other people's brands. I believe the CEO actually wanted to do something but his backers didn't.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > There's nothing really comparable between calling for someone's assassination, and on the other hand, someone to be arrested and brought to justice for a crime. Agreed, which is why “Hang Mike pence” is not sufficient. On it’s own, it doesn’t make the distinction between two. If you want to make the case that assassination was being called for, you need to quote something else.
    - jariel 5y ago
      "Hang Mike Pence” is calling for assassination. "Arrest Mike Pence" is not. "Put Mike Pence to Trial and then Hang Him" isn't either. You have to qualify 'Kill That Guy' with something more in order for it not to be calling for someone's murder. This activity was out in the open, uncontrolled on Parler which is why it was a problem, even if technically it might be legal, Apple doesn't want to deal with that. I think their response was on point, though Amazon's cancellation has more material effect their responsible response should have been 'you can't go live with that while on our servers you have 3 months to change policy or move out'. Granted, they may have been warned.
      - zepto 5y ago
        Generally hangings have been just as much a judicial punishment as extrajudicial. You simply can’t state that it alone is equivalent to a call for assassination. The fact that you have to use the phrase ‘kill that guy’ which is a straw man, shows that the logic doesn’t work. Consider, ‘he should get the electric chair’. It’s pretty clear that this is not a call for assassination. There is some ambiguity around hanging which is less present with the electric chair, but is not the clear call for assassination you assert it to be.
- knz_ 5y ago
  > but just calling for it seems like it can’t be enough. Speech that advocates support and action by terrorist groups is not protected by the first amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providing_material_support_for_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providing_material_support_for...
  - zepto 5y ago
    Yes - that was pointed out in the comment you replied to: > Organizing an extrajudicial mob to carry it out, is another thing entirely
    - knz_ 5y ago
      And I was pointing out that you just broke that very law by insinuating it was OK to call for Mike Pence's execution by a violent mob.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > insinuating it was OK to call for Mike Pence's execution by a violent mob. Where did I insinuate this?
- sofixa 5y ago
  > This doesn’t seem sufficient to me. Given that the US has the death penalty at all, how can we declare that it is not ok for people to call for it when they believe a crime has been committed Does the crime they believe was committed have the death penalty? If not, then calling for the death of the "criminal" is certainly not ok. ( And generally I find calling for death and the death penalty to be morally wrong, but that's another story)
  - zepto 5y ago
    I think they think the crime was treason, so yes, it has the death penalty. I don’t agree with your logic that this is necessary though. Someone can reasonably call for a higher penalty than is currently the statute, as long as it is not clearly extrajudicial. > (And generally I find calling for death and the death penalty to be morally wrong, but that's another story) Yes - I’m not making a claim about the morality of calling for death or the death penalty, but I am saying that if the death penalty is legal, it must be legal to call for it.

zepto 5y ago

> when you have major thought leaders on your platform calling for the VP to be executed This doesn’t seem sufficient to me. Given that the US has the death penalty at all, how can we declare that it is not ok for people to call for it when they believe a crime has been committed? Organizing an extrajudicial mob to carry it out, is another thing entirely, but just calling for it seems like it can’t be enough.

newacct583 5y ago
> This doesn’t seem sufficient to me. Nonetheless it did to Twitter, and it seems like a very reasonable position. I mean, fine, if the free-speech-above-all-reason crowd wants to literally call for people to be killed and excuse that with "but AKSHOOALLY we're talking about the legal government exercise of the death penalty", then... OK. I think there's a reasonable argument that you have a first amendment right to do it. But fuck right off with your demands to do it on MY platform, because AKSHOOALLY the first amendment constrains only the government and not my right to publish what I want on my hardware.
- kokanator 5y ago
  Make sure your aim isn't to justify your own beliefs. Seems like this is calling for what your are opposed to an it isn't censored. https://twitter.com/hashtag/killcops?lang=en https://twitter.com/hashtag/killcops?lang=en
  - newacct583 5y ago
    It sure looks censored to me. I see only three tweets at that link, one calling for NOT shooting cops and the other two are just textless retweets of non-violent content that happens to include the hashtag. If Twitter is allowing a #killcops hashtag to proliferate containing actual threats, then they should absolutely be blocking it. Seriously?
- zepto 5y ago
  > But fuck right off with your demands to do it on MY platform, Who is making such demands? > because AKSHOOALLY Do you intend this as respectful discussion? > the first amendment constrains only the government and not my right to publish what I want on my hardware. Sure, but it not clear how that is relevant to the comment you are replying to.
  - newacct583 5y ago
    If you missed it, the point under discussion is Apple having removed Parler's access to the app store (and by extension similar action taken against Parler by other providers like Amazon). Apple, Parler and Amazon are all private entities not directly constrained by the first amendment. Why does that technicality matter? Because it eludidates the hypocrisy of trying to claim that Lin Wood's call for Pence's execution was "technically" a call for a legal trial and execution and not for the mob violence that actually resulted. Which was a ridiculous argument.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > Because it eludidates the hypocrisy of trying to claim that Lin Wood's call for Pence's execution was "technically" a call for a legal trial and execution and not for the mob violence that actually resulted. Who do you think is trying to claim that?
      - newacct583 5y ago
        Um... you, upthread: "Given that the US has the death penalty at all, how can we declare that it is not ok for people to call for it when they believe a crime has been committed?"
        zepto 5y ago
        Why do you think that is a claim about Lin Wood?
jariel 5y ago
There's nothing really comparable between calling for someone's assassination, and on the other hand, someone to be arrested and brought to justice for a crime. And there's also the fact that there's no basis in reality for the claims to be begin with. In all of this confusion, it is true that Parler was essentially (Edit: not! obviously 'not' moderated)moderated - and - there was a lot of really terrible stuff happening there. Like 'kill these people'. The cover that Twitter can use is that they actual do moderate people and try to get rid of them. Mostly. Parler must have had a huge leadership failure to play that game and think they were going to get away with it. There is zero chance that hosting people directly calling for violence, unmoderated, is going to last when associated with other people's brands. I believe the CEO actually wanted to do something but his backers didn't.
- zepto 5y ago
  > There's nothing really comparable between calling for someone's assassination, and on the other hand, someone to be arrested and brought to justice for a crime. Agreed, which is why “Hang Mike pence” is not sufficient. On it’s own, it doesn’t make the distinction between two. If you want to make the case that assassination was being called for, you need to quote something else.
  - jariel 5y ago
    "Hang Mike Pence” is calling for assassination. "Arrest Mike Pence" is not. "Put Mike Pence to Trial and then Hang Him" isn't either. You have to qualify 'Kill That Guy' with something more in order for it not to be calling for someone's murder. This activity was out in the open, uncontrolled on Parler which is why it was a problem, even if technically it might be legal, Apple doesn't want to deal with that. I think their response was on point, though Amazon's cancellation has more material effect their responsible response should have been 'you can't go live with that while on our servers you have 3 months to change policy or move out'. Granted, they may have been warned.
    - zepto 5y ago
      Generally hangings have been just as much a judicial punishment as extrajudicial. You simply can’t state that it alone is equivalent to a call for assassination. The fact that you have to use the phrase ‘kill that guy’ which is a straw man, shows that the logic doesn’t work. Consider, ‘he should get the electric chair’. It’s pretty clear that this is not a call for assassination. There is some ambiguity around hanging which is less present with the electric chair, but is not the clear call for assassination you assert it to be.
knz_ 5y ago
> but just calling for it seems like it can’t be enough. Speech that advocates support and action by terrorist groups is not protected by the first amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providing_material_support_for_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providing_material_support_for...
- zepto 5y ago
  Yes - that was pointed out in the comment you replied to: > Organizing an extrajudicial mob to carry it out, is another thing entirely
  - knz_ 5y ago
    And I was pointing out that you just broke that very law by insinuating it was OK to call for Mike Pence's execution by a violent mob.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > insinuating it was OK to call for Mike Pence's execution by a violent mob. Where did I insinuate this?
sofixa 5y ago
> This doesn’t seem sufficient to me. Given that the US has the death penalty at all, how can we declare that it is not ok for people to call for it when they believe a crime has been committed Does the crime they believe was committed have the death penalty? If not, then calling for the death of the "criminal" is certainly not ok. ( And generally I find calling for death and the death penalty to be morally wrong, but that's another story)
- zepto 5y ago
  I think they think the crime was treason, so yes, it has the death penalty. I don’t agree with your logic that this is necessary though. Someone can reasonably call for a higher penalty than is currently the statute, as long as it is not clearly extrajudicial. > (And generally I find calling for death and the death penalty to be morally wrong, but that's another story) Yes - I’m not making a claim about the morality of calling for death or the death penalty, but I am saying that if the death penalty is legal, it must be legal to call for it.