Deplatform Parler good or bad?

[Santti]

What you don't get is that these people don't need Twitter or Facebook to spread their vomit to those who agree with them. They will go to great lengths to communicate and we won't be able to find them so easily. We won't be able to talk to them and make them realize how wrong they are, which is something you really want to do. They will get their echo chamber, with or without a platform.

You can't fight this kind of irrationality with rational arguments. It doesn't work.

And of course they will find a new place for themselves. That goes without saying.

[Egomaniac]

We won't be able to talk to them and make them realize how wrong they are, which is something you really want to do.

No it isn't.

[Kathranis]

Think this warrants reposting in this thread:

https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/

Over 500 videos of the protest and insurrection, scraped from Parler before the AWS shutdown, compiled in chronological order and categorized by proximity to the Capitol.

[Shadowferal]

There's an infinite amount of possibilities for dumbfuckery in this world.

Can't argue with that.
Every time I think things can't go any lower some...dumbass like Giuliani, brings a shovel.

[Felya]

What you don't get is that these people don't need Twitter or Facebook to spread their vomit to those who agree with them. They will go to great lengths to communicate and we won't be able to find them so easily. We won't be able to talk to them and make them realize how wrong they are, which is something you really want to do. They will get their echo chamber, with or without a platform.

This is an argument used by NAMBLA...

[Endus]

Right now a lot of Trump supporters are being quiet because they now realize they could be arrested for some very serious charges. But they haven't stopped believing in what they believe and deplatforming them is just reinforcing their beliefs. They choose to isolate themselves anyway from media that isn't Fox news. They may use Twitter but they follow who they want to follow. It's not like they're going to listen to people like Bernie Sanders just because Trump isn't on Twitter. Gab, Parler, or whatever is something they will use to continue to breath their own farts and enjoy it. Then when it comes to election time in 4 years we'll be asking ourselves where did these racist Republicans come from and why are there so many voting for this other guy who's also racist. This is pretty much what happened in 2016 when Hillary lost and what almost happened in 2020. A lot of people came out and voted for Trump, and we lefts weren't aware of how many of these people existed. Who thought that Trump didn't have a chance in 2016, because that's what I thought.

I couldn't care less if a bunch of violent criminals want protection from the consequences of their own execrable behaviour.

If they find a new spot to hide, so be it. If they can find each other, the FBI can find that hidey hole just as easily, and it makes their job easier as the proportion of violent radicals is much higher.

The last thing I'm gonna support is kowtowing to terrorists because you're afraid they might hurt someone. Their actions are not your responsibility. Fuck them and whatever they want. They deserve nothing but mockery and derision. If that radicalizes them further and they hurt someone, so be it, that's nobody's responsibility but their own, for being violent shitbags.

If there's enough of them to win elections, the USA is already dead and what we're seeing are death throes. It's not salvageable, at that point. And encouraging them just gets their numbers to grow, which is what the permissive stances of social media companies have allowed for. Hence the widespread change, as they've recognized their responsibility for this cultural shift.

You've stuck the cart before the horse, to protect and support domestic terrorists.

[Felya]

You've stuck the cart before the horse, to protect and support domestic terrorists.

The arguments they are making should not be made for very obvious reasons... that’s should make it clear that the argument is baseless:

They will go somewhere else: The same as NAMBLA, you don’t get to have victims in a space where people go fo entertainment.
Most of the posts were not breaking the rules: This is true of everyone breaking the rules... no one is perpetually breaking rules.
This is like China: Absolutely not! This is the opposite of China... you go to work camps for talking shit about the government.
revoking Section 230 will fix this: Absolutely not! Revoking 230 would make most posting social media disappear. Even the conservatives that are complaining about being silenced.

These are all reactionary and act like social media should be a utility... which is absurd, when we don’t even have universal coverage. How the hell does socializing social media take precedence over healthcare... make any sense?

[Machismo]

What you don't get is that these people don't need Twitter or Facebook to spread their vomit to those who agree with them. They will go to great lengths to communicate and we won't be able to find them so easily. We won't be able to talk to them and make them realize how wrong they are, which is something you really want to do. They will get their echo chamber, with or without a platform.

- - - Updated - - -


Be excellent to each other? Just don't say any bad language and you should be fine.

Great, then you should have no problem with people deciding to not do business with them, and you are now arguing against the bullshit narrative that it goes against free speech.

[Othraerir]

dunno, what is it?

[Endus]

The arguments they are making should not be made for very obvious reasons... that’s should make it clear that the argument is baseless:

They will go somewhere else: The same as NAMBLA, you don’t get to have victims in a space where people go fo entertainment.
Most of the posts were not breaking the rules: This is true of everyone breaking the rules... no one is perpetually breaking rules.
This is like China: Absolutely not! This is the opposite of China... you go to work camps for talking shit about the government.
revoking Section 230 will fix this: Absolutely not! Revoking 230 would make most posting social media disappear. Even the conservatives that are complaining about being silenced.

These are all reactionary and act like social media should be a utility... which is absurd, when we don’t even have universal coverage. How the hell does socializing social media take precedence over healthcare... make any sense?

You can make a case for "internet access" as a utility, but social media? Bananas.

Another angle that's seemingly completely overlooked, and which I meant to include in my last post and just plum forgot, is the effect on every other user who's confronted with these awful posts. They're being abused and victimized by these shitheads. That's why the site has rules banning that kind of conduct; to protect the rest of its community. If you're asking me to feel bad for the Nazi shitbrain banned for posting swastika memes on Facebook and not everyone hurt by having seen that shit on their feed, I'm going to straight up laugh in your face while pointing at you. That's fucking ridiculous, as a position. It will be soundly mocked, because it isn't worth discussion.

[Egomaniac]

That's fucking ridiculous, as a position. It will be soundly mocked, because it isn't worth discussion.

Which is doubly funny because these people that were posting these images and saying "don't be so sensitive" are now saying that we have to be more considerate of their feelings...

[segara82]

Great.

Nice strawman. I didn't say it influenced elections. So do newspapers - should they be forced to run every story regardless of how truthful or verifiable? Does that limit free speech in your view?

No. You cannot hold a speech on twitter without it being hosted or broadcast elsewhere. Period. Sorry you don't understand how twitter works.

Still not a monopoly.

1. Great.

2. Neither did I, i wrote INFLUENCES elections. So you either did not read what i wrote or misunderstood on purpose.

3. And you misunderstand me again, on purpose.

4. And again, not what i wrote. Do you even read what i write? I wrote that Twitter is buying up possible competitors to insure that their power and reach is not dimished, and they have quite a lot of those. If no competition is allowed to manifest, how free are you when it comes to your choice in reaching all those people?

@Egomaniac: the goal of capitalism is to create monopolies for the reliable production of income to the owners of capital. Monopolies are however not good for the masses of the people. Therefore i am a proponent for mixed economic systems.

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.

I compared it to the old FR to better illustrate the reach and influence of Twitter and the other social medias.
I am well aware that they are private enterprises, and therefore have their own rules in addition to the laws.
Where the comparison to the bar, store or theater however falls apart IMO is the reach and influence.

If you really want to compare it use a private enterprise of comparable size, like say, not getting kicked out of a shop but getting banned from the entire chain. EG parler gets kicked out of one McDonalds and now are banned from all McDs.
In the case of parler, and to stay with your store-comparison, Burger King heard of their behaviour and banned them as well from all their shops. As did Wendys, and Bank of America and many more.

Tell me, how does that compare to 'any store, bar, or theater'?

Or how does it address the underlying issues, like poor oversight in general by facebook and twitter (racism, xenophobia and other -isms are still creeping around like https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir?lang=de) ,
why people believe that right-wing shit in the first place,
...

Concentrate more on fighting the root of the problem and less the symptoms.

[Egomaniac]

Tell me, how does that compare to 'any store, bar, or theater'?

Parler isn't an individual person dealing with an individual restaurant. They are a company. And they were dealing with multiple other companies. These companies didn't just "hear about" the problems...they all had their own problems with Parler over the same issues.

So it's more like this:

Parler fails to live up to the terms of their contracts with "McDonalds", "Burger King", "Wendy's", etc
McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's all cancel their contract.

[ati87]

You can't fight this kind of irrationality with rational arguments. It doesn't work.

And of course they will find a new place for themselves. That goes without saying.

Sure finding a host to replace Amazon is relatively easy, you might pay more for less (there is a reason why Amazon and Microsoft are the biggest) but replacements you will find.
Problem is outreach. Not having access to the app store is kind of a killer for a social media platform which lives off engagement of it's users to thrive which is why the Apple ban will hurt them more than the Amazon ban in the long run.

And in every single TOS, including Parler, there is a clear rule about not engaging in violence and be respectful. As long as it's low key Parler could get away with not enforcing there own rules but based on the list that Amazon released I'm guessing that with the influx of new right-wingers the management of Parler forgot that companies like Amazon and Apple don't want to open themselves up for possible being held responsible for the actions of who they do business with.

[Shalcker]

And in every single TOS, including Parler, there is a clear rule about not engaging in violence and be respectful. As long as it's low key Parler could get away with not enforcing there own rules but based on the list that Amazon released I'm guessing that with the influx of new right-wingers the management of Parler forgot that companies like Amazon and Apple don't want to open themselves up for possible being held responsible for the actions of who they do business with.

They cannot be held responsible though because they are protected by 230, and Parler was actually enforcing their own rules.

Amazon simply claimed they are unsatisfied with speed and scope.

[postman1782]

They cannot be held responsible though because they are protected by 230, and Parler was actually enforcing their own rules.

Amazon simply claimed they are unsatisfied with speed and scope.

They weren't. That is why they were kicked off. They had MONTHS to do something, and didn't. It wasn't just like they got rid of them over night. There are hundreds of examples in why they were kicked off their servers. And those accounts were probably STILL active when they were removed.

[Egomaniac]

They cannot be held responsible though because they are protected by 230, and Parler was actually enforcing their own rules.

Amazon simply claimed they are unsatisfied with speed and scope.

Even if they were living up to their own standards...it doesn't matter.

They weren't living up to the standards set in their Terms of Service with AWS

You can try and spin it any way you want...but that's what it comes down to.

[Shalcker]

They weren't. That is why they were kicked off. They had MONTHS to do something, and didn't.

But they did. And were gearing up to do more.

It wasn't just like they got rid of them over night. There are hundreds of examples in why they were kicked off their servers. And those accounts were probably STILL active when they were removed.

Hundreds of examples out of 10 millions. That do get removed.

[postman1782]

But they did. And were gearing up to do more.

Hundreds of examples out of 10 millions. That do get removed.

Wrong. You have no fucking clue what their moderation was like, unless you were on there spreading misinformation like you are now. There is a reason that Amazon has hundreds of incidents cited in their defense against the Parler lawsuit.

[Shalcker]

Even if they were living up to their own standards...it doesn't matter.

They weren't living up to the standards set in their Terms of Service with AWS

It's silly argument. Standards that are so fuzzy it's basically "You are allowed to use our services as long as we like you" - and then obviously the moment they stop liking you standard is broken!

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong. You have no fucking clue what their moderation was like, unless you were on there spreading misinformation like you are now. There is a reason that Amazon has hundreds of incidents cited in their defense against the Parler lawsuit.

Because it's fairly big social platform, no different from any other in that regard.