Deplatform Parler good or bad?

[Zan15]

One can even expand upon that:



Critical Mass Facepalm

ya that one i knew about, but he was not there just yet....yet

[breadisfunny]

Big companies should be broken up a bit, sure. What you should advocate for is a tax funded online platform. Nobody gets banned, one account per citizen, pretty much a virtual public park. I'm curious how it would turn out.

Big companies having as much power as Twitter, Google, etc is capitalism working as intended.

it would end badly.

[Theodarzna]

It shouldn't be.

1) Parler didn't do anything wrong. This is literally "We don't like the political valiance of a lot of this things users so its banned".

2) It's monopolistic since it basically is using overwhelming power and market consolidation to protect Jack Dorsey.

3) All the organizing for the Capitol Hill riot were done on facebook and instagram so why is Parler being attacked?

4) Parler, for its many faults, did remarkably have some nice features I've heard. Mainly that it doesn't sell user data or use algorithms to curate content for individual users.

So over all the only case for going after Parler is a belief that "Yes, these state sanctioned monopolies that are arms of our domestic spy agencies should also have unchecked power over discourse."

[Machismo]

It shouldn't be.

1) Parler didn't do anything wrong. This is literally "We don't like the political valiance of a lot of this things users so its banned".

2) It's monopolistic since it basically is using overwhelming power and market consolidation to protect Jack Dorsey.

3) All the organizing for the Capitol Hill riot were done on facebook and instagram so why is Parler being attacked?

4) Parler, for its many faults, did remarkably have some nice features I've heard. Mainly that it doesn't sell user data or use algorithms to curate content for individual users.

So over all the only case for going after Parler is a belief that "Yes, these state sanctioned monopolies that are arms of our domestic spy agencies should also have unchecked power over discourse."

1) This is more of your lies. They broke the rules set forth by the companies they wanted to work with, so those companies chose to cut ties. If your plumber doesn't fix your leak, did he do his job?

2) It's not a fucking monopoly, stop with that lie. Parler can literally host their own shit on their own servers.

3) That is also a fucking lie, even the FBI is saying you are lying.

4) You are trying to tout something that you never even used. Well, if they are that great, why didn't you use them?

It's amazing how often you get caught lying for Nazis.

[Endus]

It shouldn't be.

1) Parler didn't do anything wrong. This is literally "We don't like the political valiance of a lot of this things users so its banned".

Lie.

They broke terms of service, and had weeks to resolve it, and refused to.

2) It's monopolistic since it basically is using overwhelming power and market consolidation to protect Jack Dorsey.

How does any of this protect Dorsey? He isn't involved at all. And Parler posed no competitive threat to Twitter.

The idea you're presenting is nonsense.

3) All the organizing for the Capitol Hill riot were done on facebook and instagram so why is Parler being attacked?

Terms of service violations involving threats of violence. Amazon was clear about this. It's almost like you made zero effort to find out what happened, and just made up a story in your head instead.

4) Parler, for its many faults, did remarkably have some nice features I've heard. Mainly that it doesn't sell user data or use algorithms to curate content for individual users.

"They should get a pass on their rule-breaking because they did some things some people like" isn't an argument in any way whatsoever.

None of your 4 points has any basis in reality.

[Felya]

So over all the only case for going after Parler is a belief that "Yes, these state sanctioned monopolies that are arms of our domestic spy agencies should also have unchecked power over discourse."

State sanctioned? The president of the US and his whole party have convinced their supporters that government control of social media is freedom... but, you think that means sanctioned?

- - - Updated - - -

None of your 4 points has any basis in reality.

Complaining that they are state sanctioned, when the demand is control by the state, doesn’t make any fucking sense. It’s like saying you can get aids from donating blood... oh wait... this poster started an entire thread on that dumb assery.

[Egomaniac]

It shouldn't be.

1) Parler didn't do anything wrong. This is literally "We don't like the political valiance of a lot of this things users so its banned".

2) It's monopolistic since it basically is using overwhelming power and market consolidation to protect Jack Dorsey.

3) All the organizing for the Capitol Hill riot were done on facebook and instagram so why is Parler being attacked?

4) Parler, for its many faults, did remarkably have some nice features I've heard. Mainly that it doesn't sell user data or use algorithms to curate content for individual users.

So over all the only case for going after Parler is a belief that "Yes, these state sanctioned monopolies that are arms of our domestic spy agencies should also have unchecked power over discourse."

1) They did. I know you think of ToS as an annoying step you have to pretend you actually read before clicking "accept". But there are actual Terms of Service in there.
2) If AWS banned Parler in order to protect Jack...why did they enter in contract with Parler in the first place?
3) Lie.
4) Parler can continue to have those nice features once they find someone willing to host them.

[Felya]

Parler, for its many faults, did remarkably have some nice features I've heard. Mainly that it doesn't sell user data or use algorithms to curate content for individual users.

I’ve heard that parlor encouraged their most prolific posters to go to other forums and pretend they never use parlor, but hear they are great. People say it... It’s what I heard... some people say...



FYI: Parlor catalogued all their data... including the things you deleted. We know that, because their info got stolen. Tell the people you heard this from, to keep an eye on their social security number being used illegally.

[NED funded]

I’ve heard that parlor encouraged their most prolific posters to go to other forums and pretend they never use parlor, but hear they are great. People say it... It’s what I heard... some people say...



FYI: Parlor catalogued all their data... including the things you deleted. We know that, because their info got stolen. Tell the people you heard this from, to keep an eye on their social security number being used illegally.

I am still surprised people actually put their social security numbers on some random social media website xddd

Like I kinda get if you are somewhat old but the type of people that frequented were deffo online addicted and should have know better

[Endus]

I am still surprised people actually put their social security numbers on some random social media website xddd

Back just before they got taken down, I went to just make an account to demonstrate that you still could, and it wouldn't let me even create an account without both an e-mail (not a problem, I have burner e-mails for such purposes) and my cell phone number (fat goddamned chance am I giving that to any company I don't trust; they'll just sell it on to partners.)

That was just Step 1 to make an account, not even to get verified.

[Kathranis]

China's probably proud of big tech for all the censorship.

Imagine Sina Corporation banning Xi Jinping from Weibo.

These arguments comparing this to China or 1984 are so hilariously off-base that it's hard to fathom you're trying to be serious.

We're talking about a fucking publicly traded company telling the President to fuck off. That's like the most American shit ever.

[Stelio Kontos]

In my defense, when I read the story two days ago, the Uganda situation was only banning social media like twitter and facebook. In the ensuing time Musaveni extended it to a general internet shutdown. Here are the stories two days ago, clearly referencing social media:

https://qz.com/africa/1956188/uganda...ut-in-streets/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/...-for-elections

So while I'm wrong now, I wasn't wrong when I first came across the story.

That being said, what twitter and facebook did is worrying other countries as well:

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/artic...blocking-trump

https://apnews.com/article/merkel-tr...7e03159f0dc1c9

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberth...h=4616a3c813b5


Even Jack Dorsey admits it could set a dangerous precedent:

https://apnews.com/article/jack-dors...c1fd1132a525d8

Dorsey acknowledged that shows of strength like the Trump ban could set dangerous precedents...

and

Dorsey declined to criticize his Big Tech counterparts directly, even noting that “this moment in time might call for this dynamic.” Over the long term, however, he suggested that aggressive and domineering behavior could threaten the “noble purpose and ideals” of the open internet by entrenching the power of a few organizations over a commons that should be accessible to everyone.

So it's not just right wing folks you can easily pigeonhole who have issues with how Big Tech's been acting. But hey, fuck the sources and actual leaders having issues with it, as long as it pisses off anyone to your right, eh?

[Magicalcrab]

Even Jack Dorsey admits it could set a dangerous precedent:

https://apnews.com/article/jack-dors...c1fd1132a525d8

Dorsey acknowledged that shows of strength like the Trump ban could set dangerous precedents...

and

Dorsey declined to criticize his Big Tech counterparts directly, even noting that “this moment in time might call for this dynamic.” Over the long term, however, he suggested that aggressive and domineering behavior could threaten the “noble purpose and ideals” of the open internet by entrenching the power of a few organizations over a commons that should be accessible to everyone.

So it's not just right wing folks you can easily pigeonhole who have issues with how Big Tech's been acting. But hey, fuck the sources and actual leaders having issues with it, as long as it pisses off anyone to your right, eh?

I feel like this topic lends itself to a little more nuanced a discussion than a weird and sometimes antagonistic online forum can provide. There are multiple things being discussed here, and I don't think an opinion on one of those areas necessarily contradicts or disqualifies any opinion on the others.

1. Is banning Trump and his ilk from Social Media a good thing?
2. Is banning/deplatforming/discouragement from using Parler a good thing?
3. Do large corporations have too much control over general discourse and/or have too much influence over our daily lives?


While there is certainly overlap between those topics, you can have several different opinions on each of them (or just click 'Yes to All' like I do) without necessarily being hypocritical.

Personally, I also feel like it's weird how we mainly talk about point #3 whenever a right-wing radio host or a right-wing personality gets banned for breaking ToS. And it doesn't seem to be brought up in popular political circles outside of those cases. Just an interesting observation.

[Elegiac]

Personally, I also feel like it's weird how we mainly talk about point #3 whenever a right-wing radio host or a right-wing personality gets banned for breaking ToS. And it doesn't seem to be brought up in popular political circles outside of those cases. Just an interesting observation.

Could have something to do with the right wing in America constantly running afoul of the Tolerance Paradox in ways that left-wing media does not. Just saying.

[Magicalcrab]

Could have something to do with the right wing in America constantly running afoul of the Tolerance Paradox in ways that left-wing media does not. Just saying.

There's definitely something about the American right-wing that tends to conflict with almost every ToS on the planet. And then a lot of crying ensues.
I wish I could figure out why that is. What is it about the Republican voters that makes it so difficult to not break ToS?

Hmmmmmmmm...

[Elegiac]

There's definitely something about the American right-wing that tends to conflict with almost every ToS on the planet. And then a lot of crying ensues.
I wish I could figure out why that is. What is it about the Republican voters that makes it so difficult to not break ToS?

Hmmmmmmmm...

"Twitter reportedly won't use an algorithm to crack down on white supremacists because some GOP politicians could end up getting barred too" might explain it.

[Endus]

I feel like this topic lends itself to a little more nuanced a discussion than a weird and sometimes antagonistic online forum can provide. There are multiple things being discussed here, and I don't think an opinion on one of those areas necessarily contradicts or disqualifies any opinion on the others.

1. Is banning Trump and his ilk from Social Media a good thing?
2. Is banning/deplatforming/discouragement from using Parler a good thing?

I would argue that the important question not if it's good that they were banned, it's about whether their actions deserve that kind of ban.

And in both cases, that answer's a pretty clear "yes".

3. Do large corporations have too much control over general discourse and/or have too much influence over our daily lives?


While there is certainly overlap between those topics, you can have several different opinions on each of them (or just click 'Yes to All' like I do) without necessarily being hypocritical.

Personally, I also feel like it's weird how we mainly talk about point #3 whenever a right-wing radio host or a right-wing personality gets banned for breaking ToS. And it doesn't seem to be brought up in popular political circles outside of those cases. Just an interesting observation.

I mean, I'd answer a clear "yes" to the latter, with a caveat. That caveat would be that I'm not interested in "corporations", as corporations are just tools. I care about the people wielding those tools.

So, with the caveat in mind, the question is really "do capitalists have too much control over general discourse/influence over daily lives?"

And that's where my "yes" comes in.

But then, I'm a socialist, so that kind of point of view isn't a contradiction. Most of these right-wingers, though, are such strong capitalists that many are outright anarcho-capitalists, and that kind of view is a direct contradiction of the idea that these capitalists have too much power; they want those capitalists to have all that power. Arguing otherwise is either hypocrisy, or a demonstration that they don't actually believe in/understand what capitalism really is. Either explanation is pretty damning.

And I'll note that in my ideal world, with a socialist economy, we'd end up with a Twitter that's run by a worker collective. And they would, I imagine, be just as likely to ban Trump. Probably more likely. I don't have a single issue with that. My entire issue is with capitalist ownership, not that companies can control who is and is not a client for their services, within reason.

[Magicalcrab]

I would argue that the important question not if it's good that they were banned, it's about whether their actions deserve that kind of ban.

And in both cases, that answer's a pretty clear "yes".



I mean, I'd answer a clear "yes" to the latter, with a caveat. That caveat would be that I'm not interested in "corporations", as corporations are just tools. I care about the people wielding those tools.

So, with the caveat in mind, the question is really "do capitalists have too much control over general discourse/influence over daily lives?"

And that's where my "yes" comes in.

But then, I'm a socialist, so that kind of point of view isn't a contradiction. Most of these right-wingers, though, are such strong capitalists that many are outright anarcho-capitalists, and that kind of view is a direct contradiction of the idea that these capitalists have too much power; they want those capitalists to have all that power. Arguing otherwise is either hypocrisy, or a demonstration that they don't actually believe in/understand what capitalism really is. Either explanation is pretty damning.

And I'll note that in my ideal world, with a socialist economy, we'd end up with a Twitter that's run by a worker collective. And they would, I imagine, be just as likely to ban Trump. Probably more likely. I don't have a single issue with that. My entire issue is with capitalist ownership, not that companies can control who is and is not a client for their services, within reason.

I agree with all of these points, and I think this post is a good example of my argument.
The attempt by the right to conflate these very broad topics seems almost intentional, since it is to their benefit to paint anyone who disagrees with them in an antagonistic light and to imply hypocrisy. It's not so much about Parler and Trump being hives of scum and villainy - that point is inarguable - but about pointing out perceived dishonesty.

"You claim to be a pro-worker socialist, but here you are defending the rights of large corporations! How hypocritical!"
"You claim to be tolerant, but you won't be tolerant of nazis and racists! How hypocritical!"
"You claim to be for unity and compromise, and yet you won't let us make the world objectively worse by every conceivable metric! How hypocritical!"


This kind of reductionism is actively harmful to discourse and public debates on these issues. Almost as if that's the point.

(I understand that my paraphrasing is also a little hypocritical given my argument, but give me a break, I'm running on fumes here and English is my second language.)

[Egomaniac]

Dorsey acknowledged that shows of strength like the Trump ban could set dangerous precedents...

and

Dorsey declined to criticize his Big Tech counterparts directly, even noting that “this moment in time might call for this dynamic.” Over the long term, however, he suggested that aggressive and domineering behavior could threaten the “noble purpose and ideals” of the open internet by entrenching the power of a few organizations over a commons that should be accessible to everyone.

So it's not just right wing folks you can easily pigeonhole who have issues with how Big Tech's been acting. But hey, fuck the sources and actual leaders having issues with it, as long as it pisses off anyone to your right, eh?

I think this actually makes the case for Twitter banning Trump even stronger. It wasn't some shoot from the hip decision. Jack saw the situation, saw the potential problems that could arise from Banning Trump, and Banned him anyway because the rhetoric is actually getting people killed now.

Also, keep in mind it was only Trump's personal account that got banned. The POTUS account is still active. So the connection between POTUS and The American People is intact.

[Shalcker]

Do you even understand your own argument anymore?

They never were truly independent in a way that allowed to ask hard questions to those who paid for their existence.

But illusion of independence is useful for propaganda purposes.

Just like RT.