Deplatform Parler good or bad?

[Kathranis]

What’s more telling than a thread on people being silenced, by people being silenced? This silence is deafening...

For some reason the people supposedly being censored always seem to have a platform to complain about being censored on.

Of course, these are the same people claiming poll workers were caught committing fraud on camera while nobody was watching.

[segara82]

So far the discussion IMO is about 2 very important, currently contradicting arguments:
1. Twitter as a private company can choose to end their business relationship with others.
2. People have the right to voice their opinions (even the stupid and hurtful ones)

How to best word it ... i best compare it to the old Forum Romanum.
In ancient Rome people had the Forum Romanum. It was THE meeting place, where ideas were discussed, triumphal processions were held, elections and trials too, the venue for public speeches ... and every citizen was allowed to show up and partake.
Nowadays social medias have become the new Forum Romanums, and like the former ideas are discussed, elections influenced, .. you get the idea. Access is easy, anybody with a phone or computer can partake.
That's how powerful they have become.
Denying someonce access to that is akin to denying them to reach millions of people (and voters).



And because i know some people will state (again) that some people should not be able to spew their vitriol:
It will not change their opinions, or silence them permanently. He can still 'hear' you but you gave up the possibility to hear him and therefore know what he is up to.
Unless you find the reason WHY they follow that way of thinking and changing the things that make people think that way they will not dissappear.

[Lenonis]

Why would it be okay to cut someone off from that?

Because your analogy is shitty.

Twitter isn't a government related body.
Twitter doesn't hold elections or trials.
Twitter itself doesn't hold public speeches - some other forum has to host them to be shared on Twitter.
Twitter isn't a monopoly.

Twitter is allowed to decide who can use their platform. And doing so isn't a violation of anyone's rights.

[Machismo]

So far the discussion IMO is about 2 very important, currently contradicting arguments:
1. Twitter as a private company can choose to end their business relationship with others.
2. People have the right to voice their opinions (even the stupid and hurtful ones)

How to best word it ... i best compare it to the old Forum Romanum.
In ancient Rome people had the Forum Romanum. It was THE meeting place, where ideas were discussed, triumphal processions were held, elections and trials too, the venue for public speeches ... and every citizen was allowed to show up and partake.
Nowadays social medias have become the new Forum Romanums, and like the former ideas are discussed, elections influenced, .. you get the idea. Access is easy, anybody with a phone or computer can partake.
That's how powerful they have become.

Why would it be okay to cut someone off from that?


And because i know some people will state (again) that some people should not be able to spew their vitriol:
It will not change their opinions, or silence them permanently. He can still 'hear' you but you gave up the possibility to hear him and therefore know what he is up to.
Unless you find the reason WHY they follow that way of thinking and changing the things that make people think that way they will not dissappear.

Except, your analogy is wrong.

It would be the same as everyone going to discuss their opinions at the local bar, where they would watch sporting events, get drunk, talk about politics, and even try and get laid. But, when someone misbehaves, the bartender kicks them out.

This isn't about those thoughts and feelings disappearing, it's about getting them the fuck off one's own property.

[segara82]

Because your analogy is shitty.

Twitter isn't a government related body.
Twitter doesn't hold elections or trials.
Twitter itself doesn't hold public speeches - some other forum has to host them to be shared on Twitter.
Twitter isn't a monopoly.

Twitter is allowed to decide who can use their platform. And doing so isn't a violation of anyone's rights.

1. True
2. Wrong, it has proven to influence elections
3. Where did i state that? It is where you HOLD public speeches in an effort to reach millions.
4. Nope, just doing it darnest to buy up possible competition, big companies do that quite often. Here is the list:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ons_by_Twitter

@Machismo: My analogy is spot on, unlike yours.
IF Twitter had a reach of maybe 200 people, like the pub in your example you would be right.
But Twitter reaches 330 million users per month. The pub in your example is more like the entire USA.

[Ettan]

-snip- The reason Parler got deplatformed and Gab was simply untouched is because Paler gave a free reign for their subscribers to post illegal shit like death threats and death threats more specifically at elected officials especially in wake of Jan 6th.
-snip-

That is nonesene the real reason is simple; because it could be done by the cartel.
Parler used Amazon to host its services, Gab uses Epik.


As for legality there are no current legal pathways to shut down either site.

Under section 230 platforms/hosting services has defacto immunity from the content uploaded by its users.
Pmuch; xyz degenerate user can upload gore/threats/cp/you name it on your platform; and you will not be liable.
For obvious reasons it is neccecary to have such laws in place, or no hoasting/ social media platform today could exist.
As policing the entire internet.. ehh yeaaa good luck with that.

In the eu we have article 14/15 doing more or less the same but here more conditions does apply in order to be protected by it.

Article 14 establishes that hosting providers are not responsible for the content they host as long as (1) the acts in question are neutral intermediary acts of a mere technical, automatic and passive capacity; (so a degree of neutraility is actually required) (2) they are not informed of its illegal character, and (3) they act promptly to remove or disable access to the material when informed of it.

Silicon vally™ demanded that Parler waived their section 230 rights and apply baby lotion to their skin or else get the hose again (the very same sec 230 rights that apple/facebook/amazon/ect ect enjoys and needs in order to opperate).
So laws for me, not for you awesome

Now this is probably just "fine" in that within the tos/ contracts between the companies you will probably find a "we can terminate services based on bla bla bla any reason we feel like".

But is it "fine" "fine"? Definitely not.

They have been allowed to grow unchecked and freely as barbarous vile tumors until you now effectivly have a fourth branch of goverment.
(Above all the other goverment branches one should add, the branch of "I control all flow of information and fuck you").

Imo such companies should have been forcefully split and sold off long ago.
Not just for this particular sector either, just look at walmart it now employs something like 1%+ of all muricans?
Yikes.

That said even for burgerland it has been tried, as early as 2000 microsoft was orderered to split up over their monopoly position (they appealed and appealed and appealed and lost all the way until it finally fizzeled out and microsoft settled).

[Machismo]

1. True
2. Wrong, it has proven to influence elections
3. Where did i state that? It is where you HOLD public speeches in an effort to reach millions.
4. Nope, just doing it darnest to buy up possible competition, big companies do that quite often. Here is the list:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ons_by_Twitter

@Machismo: My analogy is spot on, unlike yours.
IF Twitter had a reach of maybe 200 people, like the pub in your example you would be right.
But Twitter reaches 330 million users per month. The pub in your example is more like the entire USA.

But, you said it's where they HELD elections and trials... so he isn't wrong.

Your analogy is shit, because we're talking about private property. You can literally start your own site in a matter of minutes, and billions can access it. Those billions of people can do the exact same. The fact that we're discussing this in another place that can do the same, shows your analogy to be garbage.

So, should this site be able to ban people who spam Nazi propaganda, or not?

[wunksta]

Silicon vally™ demanded that Parler waived their section 230 rights

No, they just chose not to do business with Parler.

Imo such companies should have been forcefully split and sold off long ago.

Even if that did happen it's unlikely that there would be any difference as it's clear many companies don't want to do business with Parler. It's a toxic brand at this point and no business is going to risk their reputation or profits hosting or working with them.

[Machismo]

That is nonesene the real reason is simple; because it could be done by the cartel.
Parler used Amazon to host its services, Gab uses Epik.


As for legality there are no current legal pathways to shut down either site.

Under section 230 platforms/hosting services has defacto immunity from the content uploaded by its users.
Pmuch; xyz degenerate user can upload gore/threats/cp/you name it on your platform; and you will not be liable.
For obvious reasons it is neccecary to have such laws in place, or no hoasting/ social media platform today could exist.
As policing the entire internet.. ehh yeaaa good luck with that.

In the eu we have article 14/15 doing more or less the same but here more conditions does apply in order to be protected by it.

Article 14 establishes that hosting providers are not responsible for the content they host as long as (1) the acts in question are neutral intermediary acts of a mere technical, automatic and passive capacity; (so a degree of neutraility is actually required) (2) they are not informed of its illegal character, and (3) they act promptly to remove or disable access to the material when informed of it.

Silicon vally™ demanded that Parler waived their section 230 rights and apply baby lotion to their skin or else get the hose again (the very same sec 230 rights that apple/facebook/amazon/ect ect enjoys and needs in order to opperate).
So laws for me, not for you awesome

Now this is probably just "fine" in that within the tos/ contracts between the companies you will probably find a "we can terminate services based on bla bla bla any reason we feel like".

But is it "fine" "fine"? Definitely not.

They have been allowed to grow unchecked and freely as barbarous vile tumors until you now effectivly have a fourth branch of goverment.
(Above all the other goverment branches one should add, the branch of "I control all flow of information and fuck you").

Imo such companies should have been forcefully split and sold off long ago.
Not just for this particular sector either, just look at walmart it now employs something like 1%+ of all muricans?
Yikes.

That said even for burgerland it has been tried, as early as 2000 microsoft was orderered to split up over their monopoly position (they appealed and appealed and appealed and lost all the way until it finally fizzeled out and microsoft settled).

Your argument about them demanding they waive Section 230 doesn't make any sense.

This is the case of a private company choosing to not do business with one that caters to Nazis. That's it, it's not complicated. I get that you guys want to go to bat for these Nazis, and want to attack capitalism and private property in the process, but you really should come up with better rants.

[segara82]

But, you said it's where they HELD elections and trials... so he isn't wrong.

Your analogy is shit, because we're talking about private property. You can literally start your own site in a matter of minutes, and billions can access it. Those billions of people can do the exact same. The fact that we're discussing this in another place that can do the same, shows your analogy to be garbage.

So, should this site be able to ban people who spam Nazi propaganda, or not?

And you once again prove that you neither read nor understood my post.
Both when i compared the Forum Romanum to Twitter nor when it came to your pub-analogy. But then, whenever there is something you don't like you do this, so ..
*pat pat* whatever you say, little man.

[Machismo]

And you once again prove that you neither read nor understood my post.
Both when i compared the Forum Romanum to Twitter nor when it came to your pub-analogy. But then, whenever there is something you don't like you do this, so ..
*pat pat* whatever you say, little man.

I'm not the one opposing freedom of expression and freedom of association to shill for Nazis.

So, until you believe I should be allowed to come into your home, and discuss whatever topics I like, without you being able to get me to leave, I'd say we're done here.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Your argument about them demanding they waive Section 230 doesn't make any sense.

This is the case of a private company choosing to not do business with one that caters to Nazis. That's it, it's not complicated. I get that you guys want to go to bat for these Nazis, and want to attack capitalism and private property in the process, but you really should come up with better rants.

Regarding Twitter in particular, it makes you wonder whether some people recognize the double standard at play here. When the Masterpiece Wedding Cake shop refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, the first amendment (incl. right to freedom of speech/religion) was cited as a reason for that to be acceptable; they asserted it was the shop owner's right to reject service of a customer on the grounds that it was against their beliefs. However, for Twitter, their refusal to allow people to use their platform (i.e.: disallowing someone to consume their services) is not argued as being their freedom of speech by conservatives, rather, the focus is on those who were removed from the platform. The people who violated the terms of service of the platform who were removed are being portrayed as victims of censorship, Twitter is being portrayed as being anti-free speech, and all Twitter is doing is exercising it's freedom of speech and association.

[Machismo]

Regarding Twitter in particular, it makes you wonder whether some people recognize the double standard at play here. When the Masterpiece Wedding Cake shop refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, the first amendment (incl. right to freedom of speech/religion) was cited as a reason for that to be acceptable; they asserted it was the shop owner's right to reject service of a customer on the grounds that it was against their beliefs. However, for Twitter, their refusal to allow people to use their platform (i.e.: disallowing someone to consume their services) is not argued as being their freedom of speech by conservatives, rather, the focus is on those who were removed from the platform. The people who violated the terms of service of the platform who were removed are being portrayed as victims of censorship, Twitter is being portrayed as being anti-free speech, and all Twitter is doing is exercising it's freedom of speech and association.

They are trying to treat Nazis as victims, and are opposing the First Amendment to do so.

Now, why would they do so?

[Magical Mudcrab]

They are trying to treat Nazis as victims, and are opposing the First Amendment to do so.

Now, why would they do so?

I might be far too hopeful, but I would like to think that it's simply partisan ignorance; they defer these types of ideas to an authority, possibly due to an inability to engage in political education (i.e.: lack of formal education, economic situations that disallow them from learning, inability to distinguish between quality of news sources, etc.), and they are following what was said, rather than thinking about the issues themselves. While simply following what others have put forward is by no means a good thing, it would at least be better than having bigotry deeply ingrained in them.

[Endus]

How to best word it ... i best compare it to the old Forum Romanum.
In ancient Rome people had the Forum Romanum. It was THE meeting place, where ideas were discussed, triumphal processions were held, elections and trials too, the venue for public speeches ... and every citizen was allowed to show up and partake.
Nowadays social medias have become the new Forum Romanums, and like the former ideas are discussed, elections influenced, .. you get the idea. Access is easy, anybody with a phone or computer can partake.
That's how powerful they have become.

This is just fundamentally wrong.

These social media sites are not public space. They are private space that is open to the public, only so long as said members of the public abide by the rules. Like any store, bar, or theater.

You wish it was public space, but it's not. Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first.

[Egomaniac]

1. True
2. Wrong, it has proven to influence elections
3. Where did i state that? It is where you HOLD public speeches in an effort to reach millions.
4. Nope, just doing it darnest to buy up possible competition, big companies do that quite often. Here is the list:.

2. So does Television, Radio, Newspapers, etc.
3. Any forum that allows public speeches also has rules of conduct.
4. That's called capitalism. Are you against capitalism?

[Shalcker]

Even if we assume that they help, you weren't allowed to make counter-arguments on Parler.
Parler banned liberals and progressives.

Could you point out to examples? Genuinely curious.

- - - Updated - - -

No I am going to have to disagree on these points

Gab/Parler were not the same specifically. The reason Parler got deplatformed and Gab was simply untouched is because Paler gave a free reign for their subscribers to post illegal shit like death threats and death threats more specifically at elected officials especially in wake of Jan 6th.

MEANING there was no problem with echo chambers or more specifically that one because Gab still exist Parler ATM doesn't

No, it's because Gab was already deplatformed years ago and already occupies independent infrastructure that cannot be destroyed quite as easily.

Gab has worse content then Parler - it is pretty much full-on open Nazi playground.

- - - Updated - - -

Because they have the right to do business with whoever they want?

What do you think is reasonable level of moderation though?

At which you would felt that Amazon was wrong, even if they are ultimately allowed to do what they did? (though they probably still should have given Parler 30 days as per their contract for termination case).

It's really quite difficult to stop things before the fact.

Preparations were going right from election day; certainly a few weeks ahead of event.

[Egomaniac]

At which you would felt that Amazon was wrong, even if they are ultimately allowed to do what they did? (though they probably still should have given Parler 30 days as per their contract for termination case).

As long as they are not illegally discriminating...they can do business, or not do business, with any company they wish.

Preparations were going right from election day; certainly a few weeks ahead of event.

But things have to be posted before they can be removed. That's the order in which these things work.

An argument can be made that Facebook and Twitter could have done more than they did...but Parler sat back and did nothing at all.

[Shalcker]

As long as they are not illegally discriminating...they can do business, or not do business, with any company they wish.

Suppose there would be government-ran social network, fully bound by First Amendment.

What would be reasonable moderation policy there?

[Shadowferal]

So...Twitter temporarily suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene over 'multiple' policy violations

Dumbfucks need to find another hobby.