Deplatform Parler good or bad?

[Shalcker]

Only in so far as these bans were a result of public outcry over a right wing insurgency.

Still politics, not markets.

If you think these massive, publicly-traded companies are doing anything out of sincere left wing activism, you're either naive or arguing in bad faith. They've had the opportunity to silence the right wing rhetoric and shape the narrative for over a decade now, yet they let it fester. They only acted after their platforms have been implicated in helping foment a terrorist attack.

You seem to be expecting right-wing points. I'm hard left.

Those companies certainly don't do "left-wing activism" - and in fact often stamp it out when it happens in their workplace. Letting them police population certainly isn't going to advance any real left-wing agenda, and is going to be used against left instead.

Trump already lost. He is going to leave White House in less then a week. Normalising deplatforming on a dime is not helping anything. Cheering for it makes things worse. By that you're saying it's okay for them to silence losers in politics to please current winners - to police population by corporate hand to maintain stability. Stability that more and more people are getting disillusioned with for various reasons.

If they were real threat to peace either FBI or police should have suspended Parler's operations - or coordinated with them to catch those engaging in illegal activity there. It isn't Amazons - or Twitters - job to decide who should or should not be heard.

Nevermind that Trump was given warning after warning, second chance after second chance. It's not like we didn't all see this coming. Guy spent two months incessantly posting content that needed to be moderated and debunked. Same for Powell and Pillow and most of these other people peddling outright lies.

Either ban all politicians or none of them. Taking sides, judging who is or isn't trustworthy isn't something social networks are well-equipped to do.

Many politicians constantly lie and cheat. Should they ban AOC for gaslighting people about #ForceTheVote to avoid forcing the vote then repeating same arguments verbatim why voting for impeachment is still necessary? When next race riots come around should they ban everyone supporting them?

Or maybe it's voters who should decide?

[Machismo]

Your point is totally understandable. However, what I don't agree on is deplatforming entire forums were people use it to communicate with each other. My mom has experienced the horrors of Censorship during the dictatorship years. She once ran a underground press but was instead accussed of supplying firearms. That's why she inculcated on me how the freedom of expression is a God given right considering how in her time, the press was censored, especially since even the mainstream news companies were being bribed by the dictator. Every voice whether Leftist or Rightwing deserves to be heard.

In this regard I find twitter to biased and leaning left wing, during the Arab Spring Twitter didn't ban the Arabs who used Twitter to communicate with each other and riot in the streets. But they banned Trump. I myself hate trump, but as an Acolyte and a very religious indvidual I lean rightwing, I just dislike the raging Atheism of the Left but otherwise, many facest of the Religious Rightwing like the emphasis on charity, sharing and forgiveness point to Jesus being a hippie leftie too you know.

You kicking me out of your home for yelling racist shit at your family IS DEPLATFFORMING.

This forum is free to ban you for spamming burner accounts, or pushing conspiracy theories. Twitter is free to be left-leaning, it's their property. I don't expect you to be entirely unbiased in your home. If you don't like that Twitter is supposedly left-leaning, then take your business elsewhere, or start your own company.

Was your mother being silenced, because she was booted off of Twitter, or because an authoritarian government was doing it? That's the point, you are the one who wants to go after Twitter's freedom off expression, and their freedom of association. You are the authoritarian in this conversation.

- - - Updated - - -

The only times a company can be forced to associate with someone is if the person is a protected class OR if it were the only means to facilitate something that would exercise a persons rights. Second part of that is near impossible because very few things are state owned or controlled.

Even then, that is a direct attempt to limit their freedom. However, it just happens to be a limitation that most people are fine with.

[Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr]

You kicking me out of your home for yelling racist shit at your family IS DEPLATFFORMING.

This forum is free to ban you for spamming burner accounts, or pushing conspiracy theories. Twitter is free to be left-leaning, it's their property. I don't expect you to be entirely unbiased in your home. If you don't like that Twitter is supposedly left-leaning, then take your business elsewhere, or start your own company.

Was your mother being silenced, because she was booted off of Twitter, or because an authoritarian government was doing it? That's the point, you are the one who wants to go after Twitter's freedom off expression, and their freedom of association. You are the authoritarian in this conversation.

- - - Updated - - -



Even then, that is a direct attempt to limit their freedom. However, it just happens to be a limitation that most people are fine with.

Lol I'm merely pointing out a double standard which you also liked to point out previously. And how can I be authoritarian to Twitter? I don't control them lol.
Also, this is not a Burner Account. I'm a new user here using my real name. Anyway, see you tomorrow, I got to sleep its' almost 1 AM here and I have stuff to do, good night.

[Machismo]

Lol I'm merely pointing out a double standard which you also liked to point out previously. And how can I be authoritarian to Twitter? I don't control them lol.
Also, this is not a Burner Account. I'm a new user here using my real name. Anyway, see you tomorrow, I got to sleep its' almost 1 AM here and I have stuff to do, good night.

You are the one calling for a double standard.

Luckily, Twitter and other companies have the freedom to not d business with Nazis.

[Endus]

Of course not that's an Argumentum ad extremum.

Argumentam ad extremum or argumentam ad absurdum is a valid logical tool for debunking arguments.

If premises allow for absurd conclusions, then the premises are flawed and irrational in some way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Perhaps the most famous ancient example is when Plato (I believe) was proposing definitions of what a "man" was, and proposed "a featherless biped". So Diogenes ran off, then came back, held up a plucked chicken, and shouted "BEHOLD, a MAN!"

[Adviceanon]

The delicious irony of Republicans jacking off to giving corporations full constitutional rights two decades ago, and now whinging about said corporations utilizing their constitutional rights.

You've been told this thousands of times and it still won't make it through your skull apparently, but Twitter, under citizens united, has the same constitutional rights as an individual person. So question: Say you own a server, should the law be able to force you to allow anyone to put their stuff on your server, including black panther white genocide propaganda and death threats to your family?

Think about your answer very carefully.

I think there's a line between civil discussion of topics people are uncomfortable with and saying dumb shit.
4chan has been the only place for years you could discuss obtuse and wildly unpopular opinions for over a decade without a mod banning you for hatespeech or wrongthink. At the same time, 4chan will ban or suspend users that go against the very loose guidelines the site has, allowing the users themselves to moderate the discussion via arguing truth, which I think is the best way to handle moderation.
Disagreeing with someones viewpoint to the point of abusing your power to silence them is the literal definition of fascism. Loopholes like looking for even the smallest rule they've broken and using the maximum form of punishment is also fascism, imo.

I think the more you attempt to silence people, the more radical those people become. Allowing ignorance to face the light of truth is the best way to dissolve ignorance.

- - - Updated - - -

You kicking me out of your home for yelling racist shit at your family IS DEPLATFFORMING.

Textbook definition:

Deplatforming, also known as no-platforming, is a form of political activism or prior restraint by an individual, group, or organization with the goal of shutting down controversial speakers or speech, or denying them access to a venue in which to express their opinion. Tactics used to achieve this goal among community groups include direct action and Internet activism. It is also a method used by social media and other technology companies to selectively suspend, ban, or otherwise restrict access to their platform by users who have allegedly violated the platform's terms of service, particularly terms regarding hate speech. Banking and financial service providers, among other companies, have also denied services to controversial activists or organizations, a practice known as financial deplatforming. The term deplatforming also refers generally to tactics, often organized using social media, for preventing controversial speakers or speech from being heard.

The term primarily references online environments. Also, there's a big difference between disagreeing with someone online vs. real life. People are much more agreeable in real life and much more argumentative online. You could loosely relate kicking someone out of your house as "deplatforming", but it's a stretch.

These sites are indeed free to do as they please and I have no issue with it. The issue I have is just how far up that control goes. At the website level is relatively fine, there's a billion different websites. But when you start getting higher into the server levels, well, there's only so many webhosts, then whatever's above that. I don't know how it's possible, but Parler has been 100% removed from the web. That's pretty insane.

- - - Updated - - -

So you'd be okay if I insisted on sitting in your living room while you're trying to watch TV and droning on endlessly about why socialism is a superior economic system in incredibly dry and unpleasant tones?

You wouldn't say "how did you even get in here? Get out of my house!"

Because that would be censorship, you see. And you're opposed to censorship. I have the right to free speech, do I not?

Yes, that's a terrible fucking argument and it doesn't make sense. It's also the same argument you are trying to make.

Twitter is a public forum. MMO-champ is a public forum. My house is not a public forum. I could turn my house into one, and invite people in to discuss how socialism is superior, but I choose not to, because I don't want that in my house. Twitter and MMO-champ can remove people from their forum as they wish, which is censorship. Just like not wanting people in my house talking about socialism is censorship. Their option is to then go somewhere else and talk about that stuff. But if it was so easy for Parler to just host their own website, why haven't they? Have they just 'given up'? Or are there other things at play here?
I think we are ignorant to all the answers, however it is very scary to me that so many people agree that "bad people" shouldn't have the right to speech, because who defines "bad"? It's just a very evil precedent to start basing decisions on for who is or isn't allowed to talk.

[Shadowferal]

. I don't know how it's possible, but Parler has been 100% removed from the web. That's pretty insane.

Only in the US.
If those banned really want to spread their "words" they can find another platform. One that may be sourced from another country.

[Machismo]

I think there's a line between civil discussion of topics people are uncomfortable with and saying dumb shit.
4chan has been the only place for years you could discuss obtuse and wildly unpopular opinions for over a decade without a mod banning you for hatespeech or wrongthink. At the same time, 4chan will ban or suspend users that go against the very loose guidelines the site has, allowing the users themselves to moderate the discussion via arguing truth, which I think is the best way to handle moderation.
Disagreeing with someones viewpoint to the point of abusing your power to silence them is the literal definition of fascism. Loopholes like looking for even the smallest rule they've broken and using the maximum form of punishment is also fascism, imo.

I think the more you attempt to silence people, the more radical those people become. Allowing ignorance to face the light of truth is the best way to dissolve ignorance.

- - - Updated - - -



Textbook definition:


The term primarily references online environments. Also, there's a big difference between disagreeing with someone online vs. real life. People are much more agreeable in real life and much more argumentative online. You could loosely relate kicking someone out of your house as "deplatforming", but it's a stretch.

These sites are indeed free to do as they please and I have no issue with it. The issue I have is just how far up that control goes. At the website level is relatively fine, there's a billion different websites. But when you start getting higher into the server levels, well, there's only so many webhosts, then whatever's above that. I don't know how it's possible, but Parler has been 100% removed from the web. That's pretty insane.

- - - Updated - - -



Twitter is a public forum. MMO-champ is a public forum. My house is not a public forum. I could turn my house into one, and invite people in to discuss how socialism is superior, but I choose not to, because I don't want that in my house. Twitter and MMO-champ can remove people from their forum as they wish, which is censorship. Just like not wanting people in my house talking about socialism is censorship. Their option is to then go somewhere else and talk about that stuff. But if it was so easy for Parler to just host their own website, why haven't they? Have they just 'given up'? Or are there other things at play here?
I think we are ignorant to all the answers, however it is very scary to me that so many people agree that "bad people" shouldn't have the right to speech, because who defines "bad"? It's just a very evil precedent to start basing decisions on for who is or isn't allowed to talk.

You can host your own website, by controlling your own servers. It's really not that difficult to do, and thousands of companies do it. Shit, you can buy them off of E-Bay, and start tomorrow, if you are so inclined. The reason Parler hasn't done it, is that they don't have the expertise and infrastructure to do so. They wanted to have a Cloud service, because they didn't want to be in charge of the hardware or maintenance. They haven't given up, but they are simply working through the best way to solve their issue. Powering up a server room isn't done overnight.

All these places are private entities, they are their own property. You are no more free to force yourself to speak on Twitter, than I am to speak in your living room.

Those "bad people" still have the right to speech, they simply don't have the right to someone else's megaphone and property.

[Egomaniac]

Most situations are not really that black and white anyway, it's a case-by-case basis.

Case-by-case censorship?

[Forogil]

Argumentam ad extremum or argumentam ad absurdum is a valid logical tool for debunking arguments.

If premises allow for absurd conclusions, then the premises are flawed and irrational in some way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Hold on.

There's clearly some flaw, but it might be that the flaw is not the arguments brought forth - but the hidden additional arguments that the other person is inserting. To use the wikipedia example - if someone says that earth is flat it doesn't necessarily mean an absurdity because then there would be an edge; because it could be that earth was flat without a boundary (e.g. infinite). (I know it is neither.) Similarly if someone argued that light cannot have a finite speed because then you could travel faster than that and wouldn't see anything, which is clearly absurd - and therefore light travels infinitely fast (in fact the error is in the assumption that you yourself could travel as fast as light).

So, perhaps the flaw in the argument is that publishing on a web-site isn't like yelling in someone's house.

In general we have a problem with figuring out how to treat social media platforms as the currently form some odd middle-ground: social media aren't publishers responsible for what is published on their platforms (as if they were a newspaper - as I understand repealing section 230 would put them in the same category), but they are not allowed to be completely hands-off either (as a phone-company is required to be - afaik) and can take actions against some behavior but not against others.

I don't see a major problem with deplatforming parler; but I see that the rules can be applied unevenly and I certainly don't like that we believe our best defense against a pathetic loser inciting an armed riot to overthrow an elected government is the benevolence of some companies, but at least it's better than nothing.

[szechuan]

I think the more you attempt to silence people, the more radical those people become. Allowing ignorance to face the light of truth is the best way to dissolve ignorance.

Wrong, Right Wing pundits and Trumpers were angry at Twitter for Fact Checking and accused them of "Censoring" their "Free Speech".

[Timester]

Twitter is a public forum. MMO-champ is a public forum. My house is not a public forum. I could turn my house into one, and invite people in to discuss how socialism is superior, but I choose not to, because I don't want that in my house. Twitter and MMO-champ can remove people from their forum as they wish, which is censorship. Just like not wanting people in my house talking about socialism is censorship. Their option is to then go somewhere else and talk about that stuff.

Actually, Twitter and MMO-Champ are private forums, which you agree their terms when create an account.

[Zan15]

You should try reading the article to see how it's relevant to this thread.

.

Those silly lurbrals also suppressed the story about Hillary Clinton being a reptile alien sex cult leader too


the very first paragraph says it all

1. The New York Post story raises real red flags. The documents are sourced through dubiously trustworthy and politically motivated sources, specifically Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who is linked to an alleged Russian agent accused of election meddling. While opposition research is nothing new or exclusive to Republicans, it’s possible that the alleged Biden emails were doctored, obtained in a way that was less innocuous than a lost laptop, or leaked with the explicit goal of foreign interference in the US election.

No where in the whole story do they say there was any concerted effort to "suppress" the information outside of these companies standard operating procedures.

I do not think the article says what you want it to say

- - - Updated - - -

Twitter is a public forum. MMO-champ is a public forum......... .

If you can't even get past this point then you are lost.

- - - Updated - - -

The only times a company can be forced to associate with someone is if the person is a protected class OR if it were the only means to facilitate something that would exercise a persons rights. Second part of that is near impossible because very few things are state owned or controlled.

Even then if they are doing something against the company policies/terms of service they can be booted off the service, wheelchair and all.

[Shalcker]

the very first paragraph says it all

1.

I mentioned that in first message, it isn't some revelation.

No where in the whole story do they say there was any concerted effort to "suppress" the information outside of these companies standard operating procedures.

Suppressing information the way they did certainly went way beyond their "standard operating procedures".

Check 6, 9, 11, 12, and 13.

Nowhere in my message did i mention any kind of "concerted effort".

[Cthulhu 2020]

I think there's a line between civil discussion of topics people are uncomfortable with and saying dumb shit.
4chan has been the only place for years you could discuss obtuse and wildly unpopular opinions for over a decade without a mod banning you for hatespeech or wrongthink. At the same time, 4chan will ban or suspend users that go against the very loose guidelines the site has, allowing the users themselves to moderate the discussion via arguing truth, which I think is the best way to handle moderation.
Disagreeing with someones viewpoint to the point of abusing your power to silence them is the literal definition of fascism. Loopholes like looking for even the smallest rule they've broken and using the maximum form of punishment is also fascism, imo.

I think the more you attempt to silence people, the more radical those people become. Allowing ignorance to face the light of truth is the best way to dissolve ignorance.

4chan's "self moderation" has proven that it's not who is the most right who rules the discussion, but who is the loudest, most charismatic to drawing others to their side rather than to the logic of their argument, and has the best photoshop skills combined with bullshittery. 4chan is the absolute worst example you could have possibly used for arguing that media needs to self moderate. People like to hear and agree with comforting lies that conform to the shape of their world views and opinions, rather than be faced with uncomfortable facts that directly contradict how they view the world.

Also, kicking someone off your property because you don't like them spouting white supremacist rhetoric isn't fascism. It may be the twisted 4chan definition of fascism, but no system of governance has ever protected people's right to megaphone the benefits of genociding mexican americans on someone else's soap box.

[Magicalcrab]

I think the more you attempt to silence people, the more radical those people become. Allowing ignorance to face the light of truth is the best way to dissolve ignorance.

That's not how ignorance works. People are not logical.
I'd argue that people who have been clinically diagnosed with conservatism do not need more information. It will not help them. They need less information.

So yeah.
It's not so much about silencing speech, but protecting vulnerable groups from bad actors with clear and obvious fascistic intent. Silencing fascists doesn't hurt people as much as isolating them to a single Internet-island like Parler does. Isolation from family and peers leads to further radicalisation, as we can see in both the incel, nazi and Trumpist communities - and there's also a lot of overlap there. Isolation mixed with a steady diet of misinformation from literal nazis leading to radical terrorist actions.

The woman who was trampled during the insurrection at the capitol, for example, had been out of touch with most of her family, and her relatives were unsure of how to talk to or otherwise handle her since she was so far gone, mentally. And it kept getting worse until she stormed the capitol building, putting herself in a life-threatening situation which led to her death.

This is a reminder to our American friends to call their aunts and uncles and check in on them. Just to make sure they're not caught up in anything dangerous.

[Egomaniac]

I mentioned that in first message, it isn't some revelation.

Suppressing information the way they did certainly went way beyond their "standard operating procedures".

Check 6, 9, 11, 12, and 13.

Nowhere in my message did i mention any kind of "concerted effort".

6) Could be a similar situation to Twitter where they don't like publishing hacked information. Could be that the face-checking algorithm was working in real time and downranking the story as it gathered information. Also 14.

Whether or not Facebook and Twitter made the right call here, it’s generally reasonable for moderators to make subjective judgments based on a story’s plausibility, a publication’s track record, or other factors beyond a flat legalistic standard.

9) Answered in 4. They have the first Amendment on their side.

11) It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. See 2.

Social media networks were widely excoriated for failing to act, and they would probably have been criticized for letting the Post claims spread widely — especially Facebook, where CrowdTangle data indicates the story was particularly popular.

12) Fake news is Fake news. It doesn't matter if the reporting is done in good faith. If the source that originally published the false story prints a retraction or updates the story with the proper corrections...it should be allowed to be resubmitted.

Also 13.

The Normal journalistic process doesn't work online.

13) This is a problem that goes beyond social media. The same thing happens with Cable News...where people are more or less likely to believe a story if it comes from one source and is debunked by another. CNN tells you the election was fair, Fox News tells you it was rigged. MSNBC tells you Trump is a tyrant in the making, OANN tells you that Trump is the greatest President the Country has ever known.

[anyaka21]

I think the challenge is more than just about free speech. Closing down Parler, esp by the big 3 (Apple, Google, Amazon) is kind of a monopolistic move. That said, it is also a censorship issue. They are trying to silence the right. The problem though, deplatforming, silencing, closing Parler, etc... doesn't make these people go away. It just makes them find new and creative ways that we don't know about it communicate and plan.

That said, I'm not excusing Parler and letting people violate their own terms of service without consequence. That's Parler's bad. But I'd have much rather them be scolded and/or shutdown for that then having the big 3 silence them. It sets many bad precedents. If you think about it, China has their own social network framework, or social credit score that can, for example, bar people from flying somewhere. And if you think about it now, with all the outcry, these same things are happening in the US. The US is slowly creating their own Black Mirror.

[Zan15]

Trespassing? Not here. And singling out my kids gets what it deserves. In NJ that may construe assault.
Arguing an extreme position gets extreme responses.

Accessing a companies services without permission is against the law.
In some instances the law would call that hacking.
You know like they are doing in Florida to a former employee who continued to access work systems after they were terminated.

So why can't i go into the email servers at my old job i left in 2009 and continue to send emails to the 29,000 employees there. CENSORSHIP!!!???
Or is this going to be dismissed as another extreme example?
OK how about this companies IM system we used at the time?
Why not its only speech! Protect Mah Rights???

Oh right i was kicked off those services once the terms of my employment were terminated. I didn't violate any policies except for the one that required me to maintain my employment (gg 2009 layoffs). Imagine that, signing a contract/agreement, then being subject to that very agreement.

[Egomaniac]

That said, I'm not excusing Parler and letting people violate their own terms of service without consequence. That's Parler's bad. But I'd have much rather them be scolded and/or shutdown for that then having the big 3 silence them. It sets many bad precedents. If you think about it, China has their own social network framework, or social credit score that can, for example, bar people from flying somewhere. And if you think about it now, with all the outcry, these same things are happening in the US. The US is slowly creating their own Black Mirror.

So, what you are saying is you'd rather have the government shut them down than to have companies make the decision to no longer support them.